The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.1 attch 8 - City of .Menge I)airN7 Dublin s X111. NIL WIN 1111 loll � v MCI MM MM mom I OM =0 IF s 1 -0111 I os s�I IS I W41 11M 11"1 ... .... � � �� 'IYA i��•%�11YAN1�= Inll�l X1111 owl -�1 r,'�.•�'� a NO .► �- --�� __ � DUBLIN y. CEMETERY .' Heritage Park Draft Environmental Impact Report Owl lwwiwas■wwlu antIOMww MWOMM walsi■a w■■lulu w sn _ wli��irni��iwti�IMii■�wiiiloif■isiu.u�nl�noli��ii�l�ii�►n>�i=s nw.�w�l�sl�i�i�l■�iwt�lwwu_ww■iwiwwwi�w�■�il�wil■wi�wl■� _._ �ului��.�l�le�i�i �.w�l■��Itiw�u�i�ilii■iiTiwir�iwiil■��1 ; slwiwwwuwunli= _ ��111■w�w�1 .w�o�lA■�uSlMON"t .. cili■wiww��- — ��ei■.�wa�i in�■wwwsii�i�in�w■ ..i_ ■L. � ]nom dlf■ _J ■■■noun noun t R► twill p 011is—Ifff JI■■ 4 �'.wu.wwwawuww■i.w�i�iwr Y� +u IL IL ' rry A�-- Company 1 II (■ �I,�,I,Ii,�,�,I �_ c �_ HERITAGE PARK Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2013092043 March 2014 Heritage Park Draft EIR Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary Summaryof Proposed Project............................................................................................................................. I I. Introduction 1-1 Purpose......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 EnvironmentalReview Process........................................................................................................................ 1-1 ReportOrganization.............................................................................................................................................. 1-3 ImpactTerminology............................................................................................................................................... 1-6 2. Project Description 2-1 2.2 Regional Location.....................................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Project Location........................................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Existing Setting/ Baseline Conditions............................................................................................2-1 2.4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning................................................2-2 2.5 Purpose and Objectives.......................................................................................................................2-2 2.6 Proposed Land Uses..............................................................................................................................2-3 2.7 Circulation and Parking.........................................................................................................................2-4 2.8 Infrastructure Improvements..............................................................................................................2-5 2.9 Construction Activities..........................................................................................................................2-6 2.10 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals..............................................2-7 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts& Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................................................3-3 3.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................3-13 3.3 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................................3-43 3.4 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................3-55 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change...............................................................3-69 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................................3-83 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................................3-95 3.8 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................................3-1 1 1 3.9 Noise.............................................................................................................................................I...........3-117 3.10 Public Services and Utilities...........................................................................................................3-131 P�=„K—*y-H- -d Associates.Inc. Page i Heritage Park Draft EIR Table of Contents 4. CEQA Considerations 4-1 4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects................................................................4-1 4.2 Significant Irreversible Changes.........................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Growth Inducement...............................................................................................................................4-2 4.4 Energy Conservation..............................................................................................................................4-3 4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant................................................................................................4-6 4.6 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................................................4-8 4.7 Project Alternatives..............................................................................................................................4-14 5. References 5-1 ReferencesCited.....................................................................................................................................................5-1 Listof Preparers.......................................................................................................................................................5-5 Appendices Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses to the NOP Appendix B: Air Quality—Air Quality Modeling Appendix C: Geology and Soils — Geotechnical Report and Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation Appendix E: Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Appendix F: Hydrology and Water Quality —Technical Memorandum Appendix G: Noise Note: Appendices are available for down load from the City of Dublin's web site: (www. o:dub&i .ca.us) „nmley-Horn d Asses; ta h, Pace Pae ii Heritage Park Draft EIR Table of Contents List of Figures Note —Fgures are located at the end of each respective section in the Draft EIR. Figure 2-1: Regional Location Figure 2-2: Project Vicinity Figures 2-3a: Photographs of the Project Site Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses Figure 2-5: Site Plan Figure 2-6a: Conceptual Residential Design Figure 2-6b: Conceptual Residential Design Figure 2-7a: Conceptual Commercial Office Building Design Figure 2-7b: Conceptual Commercial Office Building Design Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan Figure 2-9: Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan Figure 2-10: Demolition Plan Figure 2-1 1: Preliminary Grading Plan Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan Figure 3.4-1: Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Calaveras Fault Figure 3.4-2: Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory Trenching Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone Figure 3.7-1: FEMA Flood Zones Figure 3.8-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Figure 3.8-2: Existing Zoning Designations Z►J K—ey Nom h and Aaso.v— Page i i i Heritage Park Draft EIR Table of Contents Figure 3.8-3: Proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Map Figure 3.9-1: Proposed Noise Reduction Measures List of Tables Table S-1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts.........................................................................................3 Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand....................................................................................2-6 Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels.........................................................................................3-15 Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards...........................................3-21 Table 3.2-3: BAAQMD Project Level Thresholds.................................................................................3-23 Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status I.........................................................3-26 Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions.......................................................................3-28 Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions................................................3-34 Table 3.5-1: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds..................................................................................................3-77 Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................3-79 Table 3.5-3: Project Consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan Measures .................3-81 Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows...................................................................3-104 Table 3.8-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis....................................................3-1 14 Table3.9-1: Noise Descriptors.......................................................................................................................3-1 18 Table3.9-2: Noise Measurements................................................................................................................3-1 19 Table 3.9-3: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments .........................................................................................................................................................................3-121 Table 3.9-4: Maximum Nose Levels Generated by Construction Equipment......................3-123 Table 3.9-5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment............................................3-126 Table 3.9-6: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots................................................3-128 Table 3. 10-1: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site....................................3-132 am:e,_Ho,1. Page iv nd Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Table of Contents Table 3.10-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type .........................................................................................................................................................................3-134 Table 3.10-3: Wastewater Generation.......................................................................................................3-145 Table 3.10-5: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates.................................................3-148 Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions.....4-8 Table 4 -2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project................................4-19 /� K-1.y HOrn h A—V— Page v Heritage Park Draft EIR Executive Summary Executive Summary This summary provides a brief description of the proposed project, known areas of concern, project alternatives, and all potentially significant impacts identified during the course of this environmental analysis. This summary is intended as an overview and should be used in conjunction with a thorough reading of the Draft EIR. The text of this report, including figures, tables and appendices, serves as the basis for this summary. Summary of Proposed Project Project Location The project site is located at 1 1875 Dublin Boulevard (known as the Heritage Park office complex) within the Dub/in Vi//age Historic Area Specific Plan area in the City of Dublin. The project site is bound by San Ramon Road to the east; Dublin Boulevard to the north; and Donlon Way to the west; and Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south. Project Description The Heritage Park project (hereinafter ''proposed project'')(City of Dublin Project Application # PLPA 2013-00002) is a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the project site from ''Retail/Office" to ''Medium Density Residential.'' The proposed project would include the demolition of an 1 10,000 square foot existing office complex known as the "Heritage Park" office complex and would construct 54 small-lot single family homes and a two-story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately 6.6 acres at 1 1875 Dublin Boulevard. Project entitlements include the following: Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan Site Development Review Vesting Tentative Tract Map(s) Heritage Tree Removal Permit Development Agreement Summary of Environmental Impacts All impacts identified in the subsequent environmental analysis are summarized in Table S- 1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts, which identifies impacts by each technical section. Where mitigation measures are proposed, their title is included in the table. A complete description of each mitigation measure can be found in the respective environmental resource section. Summary of Cumulative Considerable Effects The proposed project would not result in any significant cumulative impacts. P1 X,1Ki Il y HO -d Associates.hc Page ES-1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Executive Summary Summary of Alternatives CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe and evaluate alternatives to the project that could eliminate significant adverse project impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR in the Chapter 4 - CEQA Considerations. • Alternative #I — No Project Alternative • Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Alternative Page ES-2 b M� . Y. . ntl Associates.� . Heritage Park Draft EIR Executive Summary Table S-1: Executive Summary of Project Impacts Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Aesthetics Impact 3.1-1: Damage Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant to Scenic Resources along Scenic Highways Impact 3.1-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Degradation of the Visual Character of the Project Site and Surrounding Area Impact 3.1-3: Light and Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Glare Air Quality Impact 3.2-1: Short- Potentially MM 3.2-1 a: Implement Short-term Less than Significant term Construction Significant Construction Best Management Emissions Practices MM 3.2-1 b: Implement NOX Reduction Measures Impact3.2-2: Long- Potentially MM 3.2-2: Implement only natural Less than Significant Term Operational Significant gas hearths in residential units Emissions—Regional Emissions Impact 3.2-3: Long- Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Term Operational Emissions- Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Impact 3.2-4: Long- Potentially MM 3.2-4: Provide Upgraded Less than Significant Term Operational Significant Ventilation Systems. Exposure to Emissions—Toxics Air Odorous Emissions Contaminants Impact 3.2-5: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant to Odorous Emissions necessary Impact 3.2-6: Long- Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Term Operational necessary Emissions—Clean Air Plan Consistency. Cultural Resources Impact 3.3-1: Historical Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Resources Z„Ki .y-Horn C \� antl ASSO v� ,hc. Page ES-3 Heritage Park Draft EIR Executive Summary Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Impact 3.3-2: Potentially MM 3.3-2a: Archaeological Less than Significant Archaeological Significant Monitoring and MM 3.3-2b: Halt Resources Work/Archaeological Evaluation Site Specific Mitigation Impact 3.3-3: Potentially MM 3.3-3: Halt Less than Significant Paleontological Significant Work/Paleontological Resources Evaluation/Site Specific Mitigation Impact 3.3-4: Disturb Potentially MM 3.3-4: Halt Work/Coroner's Less than Significant Human Remains Significant Evaluation/Native American Interred Outside of Heritage Consultant/Compliance Formal Cemeteries with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations Geology and Soils Impact 3.4-1: Potential Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant for Landslides Impact 3.4-2: Potential Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant for Fault Rupture Impact 3.4-3: Exposure Potentially MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design- Less than Significant of People or Structures Significant Level Geotechnical Report to Seismic Ground Impact 3.4-4: Exposure Potentially MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design- Less than Significant of People or Structures Significant Level Geotechnical Report to Liquefaction Impact 3.4-5: Result in Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Soil Erosion Impact 3.4-6: Exposure Less than Significant MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design- Less than Significant to Expansive Soil Level Geotechnical Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impact 3.5-1: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary. Less than Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 3.5-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary. Less than Significant Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.6-1: Routine Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary. Less than Significant Transport and/or Disposal of Hazardous Materials P1 Page ES-4 b.- and� d Asssocia—a tes Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Executive Summary Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Impact 3.6-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Handle/Emit Hazardous Materials in the Vicinity of a School Impact 3.6-3: Interfere Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant with an Emergency Response Plan/Emergency Evacuation Plan Impact 3.6-4: Potentially MM 3.6-4: Review Files for the Less than Significant Accidental Conditions Significant former Dublin Square Shopping During Construction Center and Prepare a Worker Safety Plan Impact 3.6-5: Potentially MM 3.6-5: Conduct a Vapor Less than Significant Accidental Conditions Significant Intrusion Investigation During Operation Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.7-1:Violate Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Water Quality necessary Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Impact 3.7-2: Deplete Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Groundwater Supplies necessary and Groundwater Recharge Land Use and Planning Impact 3.8-1: Create Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Land Use necessary Incompatibilities or Physically Divide a Community Impact 3.8-2: Conflict Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant with Applicable Land necessary Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Noise Impact 3.9-1: Exposure Potentially MM 3.9-1: Implement Short-Term Less than Significant to Short-term Significant Construction Best Management Construction Related Noise Practices Noise and Vibration Impact 3.9-2: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant to Short-Term necessary Construction Related Vibration W�„K,miey Horn C' \� and Associates.Inc. Page ES-5 Heritage Park Draft FIR Executive Summary Project Impacts Level of Significance Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Impact 3.9-3: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant to Long-Term necessary Stationary Noise Impact 3.10-4: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Exposure to Long-Term necessary Mobile Noise Public Service and Utilities Impact 3.10-1: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Increased Demand for necessary Fire Protection Service Impact 3.10-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Increased Demand for necessary Law Enforcement Service Impact 3.10-3: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Increased Demand for necessary Educational Facilities Impact 3.10-4: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Increased Demand for necessary Park and Recreation Facilities Impact 3.10-5: Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant Increased Density for necessary Library Services or Other Public Facilities Impact 3.10-6: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant in Wastewater necessary Demand and Extension of Wastewater Infrastructure Impact 3.10-7: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant in Water Demand and necessary Extension of Water Infrastructure Impact 3.10-8: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant in Stormwater Runoff necessary Impact 3.10-9: Change Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant in Generation of Solid necessary Waste i nnad As-Ho, Page ES-6 �� nssociates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Introduction 1 . Introduction Purpose This project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Heritage Park Office Complex General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment Study (hereinafter the "proposed project'') in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. A full description of the proposed project is described in Chapter 2: Project Description. This EIR focuses on evaluation of the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services and utilities. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an "informational document" with the intended purpose to: ''inform public agency decision- makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project." Although the Draft EIR does not control the ultimate decision on the proposed project, the City must consider the information in the Draft EIR and respond to each significant effect identified in the Draft EIR through findings in conjunction with any project approval. As defined in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a ''significant effect on the environment" is: "...a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether a physical change is significant.'' Environmental Review Process The review and certification process for the Draft EIR will involve the following procedural steps: Notice of Preparation In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Dublin determined that an EIR would be necessary for the proposed project; therefore an Initial Study was not prepared. In accordance with Section 15082(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Dublin Community Development Department circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), responsible and trustee agencies and to the Alameda County Clerk for a period of 30-days to solicit comments on /M„K,—y MOrn and A—ales.Inc Page I- Heritage Park Draft FIR Introduction the scope of the Draft EIR regarding the proposed project (See Appendix A). The comment period of the NOP was from Friday, September 20, 2013 to Monday, October 21, 2013. Four comments letters were received on the NOP from the following agencies: a Alameda County Transportation Agency California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) ® Alameda County Flood and Conservation District (Zone 7) Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR and the comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Draft EIR The Draft EIR contains a description of the proposed project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts and effects found not to be significant, mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, and an analysis of project alternatives. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City fled a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research, in accordance with Section 15085 of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Notice/Public Review The Draft EIR will be circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies and organizations for a 45-day public review period from Monday March 3, 2014 through Thursday, April 17, 2014. Concurrent with the Notice of Completion (NOC), the City provided a public Notice of the Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for public review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), and invited comments from the general public, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Notice of the time and location of a City meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIR will be published prior to the meeting. All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to: Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Tel: (925) 833-6610 Fax: (925) 833-6628 mike.porto @dublin.ca.gov Page 12 i ZF1 Ktmi¢y-Horn and As-ciates.Inc Heritage Park Draft FIR Introduction Response to Comments/Final EIR Following the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to comments received during the public review and comment period. The City will review and consider the Final EIR prior to the decision to approve, revise, or reject the proposed project or an altemative to the proposed project. Certification of the Final EIR If the City of Dublin finds that the Final EIR is ''adequate and complete," the City of Dublin may certify the Final EIR upon findings in accordance with CEQA. Project Consideration After review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City of Dublin may act upon the proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project would be accompanied by written Findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and, if applicable, Section 15093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). Report Organization Sections 15122 through 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Environmental Impact Reports. Among other things, an EIR must include: description of the project and environmental setting; an environmental impact analysis; mitigation measures; alternatives to the proposed project; identification of significant irreversible environmental changes; growth-inducing impacts; and cumulative impacts. The environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR were established through the preparation of environmental documentation and supporting technical reports developed for the proposed project, public agency responses to the NOP and comments received. Based upon documentation, technical reports, NOP responses, consultation with the City of Dublin, and review of the project plans, the City of Dublin has determined the scope for this EIR. This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner. Section S—Executive Summary This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project and provides a concise summary matrix of the project's environmental impacts, associated mitigation measures. Section 1.0—Introduction This section provides an introduction and overview of the Draft EIR review and certification process. Section 2.0— Project Description The project description provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including project location, site conditions, intended objectives, background information and physical and technical characteristics of the proposed project. 2„KIi y-Horn b.. and A—ales InC Page 1-3 Heritage Park Draft EIR Introduction Section 3.0—Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section contains an analysis of environmental topic areas to be addressed, as identified below. Each subsection contains a description of the existing setting of the planning area and surrounding area and identifies project-related impacts and recommends mitigation measures where necessary. The following major environmental topics are addressed in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR: • Subsection 3.1, Aesthetics: The potential change in character of the project site as measured against the existing setting and visual conditions and surrounding land uses is discussed within this subsection of the Draft EIR. Project visibility, scale, additional light and glare, and visual character are considered relative to existing conditions at the project site. The analysis is based on a site reconnaissance, photo documentation of the project site and vicinity, elevations of the proposed project, and existing policy documents (e.g. City of Dublin General Plan and Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Plan). • Subsection 3.2, Air Quality: This subsection addresses the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and analyzes local and regional air quality impacts associated with the proposed project including both short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts from mobile and stationary sources. It also addresses the potential for exposure to objectionable odors and toxic air contaminants from Interstate 580 and surrounding uses. This analysis is based on air quality modeling performed for the proposed project by RBF Consulting, which is included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Subsection 3.3, Cultural Resources: This subsection analyzes the presence or absence of potentially significant archaeological and historic resources within the project site based on existing studies including the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated resource technical studies. Since the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, the City of Dublin completed the Senate Bill (SB 18) consultation process on June 1, 2013. This subsection also analyzes the potential impacts to heritage trees that are located on the project site. Subsection 3.4, Geology and Soils: This subsection examines potential geologic and seismic hazards, as well as any engineering constraints and general soil suitability for the proposed project. Information contained in this section is based on various planning documents including the Soil Survey of Alameda County, as well as a geotechnical report and a fault rupture investigation prepared by Stevens Ferrone & Bailey in March 2012 and June 2013 on behalf of the project applicant, which was peer reviewed by Cal Engineering and Geology on behalf of the City on July 15, 2013 and August 8, 2013. The geotechnical report, fault rupture investigation and peer review is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. E Subsection 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: This subsection analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on Page 14 i_F,Kjrn¢'-Horn \ a d Associates.hK Heritage Park Draft EIR Introduction greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The GHG emissions modeling for the proposed project is included in Appendix B. • Subsection 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This subsection evaluates the potential presence of hazardous materials and contaminated soil within the project site. The potential for onsite sources of contamination such as leaking hazardous waste containers; lead-based paints; and asbestos-containing building materials, among other items is also addressed within this subsection of the Draft FIR. This subsection is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Bureau Veritas in February 2012. The potential risk of these conditions in proximity to proposed development and human activities is evaluated within this subsection of the Draft FIR. The Phase I ESA is included as Appendix D of the Draft FIR. • Subsection 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality: The impacts of the proposed project on hydrology, storm drainage, water resources and water quality are discussed within this subsection. The analysis also identifies existing drainage patterns, potential flood hazards, the proposed drainage plan, and stormwater retention requirements of the City of Dublin. This section is based upon a pre- and post-development storm water calculations prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. • Subsection 3.8, Land Use and Planning: The relationship of the proposed project to relevant regional and local plans, including the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan and the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan and other local planning documents, is discussed in this subsection. The analysis focuses on project consistency with adopted plans and policies and the proposed project's relationship to the City of Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan • Subsection 3.9, Noise: Compatibility between the existing noise environment and anticipated noise levels generated by the project-generated traffic, by on-site activities and noise from area roadways and Interstate 580 with implementation of the proposed project are examined within this subsection of the Draft FIR. The analysis is based on a noise study prepared by Charles M. Salter and Associates, which is included as Appendix F of the Draft FIR. • Subsection 3.10, Public Services and Utilities: This subsection calculates demand generated by the proposed project for additional public services such as schools, parks/recreation facilities, police, and fire services. This subsection of the Draft FIR addresses the provision of potable water service, wastewater treatment and disposal, natural gas and electric service, and solid waste impacts are also addressed in this subsection of the Draft FIR. Section 4.0—CEQA Considerations This section of the Draft FIR addresses the required discussions and analyses of various topical issues mandated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15 126.2, including: significant and unavoidable environmental effects; growth inducing impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes and effects found not to be significant. �Z„K^I y-Horn � d As—ales,Inc Page 1-5 Heritage Park Draft EIR Introduction This section also addresses alternatives to the proposed project and cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. The alternatives analysis compares the proposed project with two selected alternatives, which include the following: • Alternative #I — No Project Alternative • Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Use Alternative Section 5.0— Report Preparers and References The purpose of this section is to provide a list of all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the report by name, title, and company or agency affiliation. It also itemizes supporting and reference data used in the preparation of the Draft FIR and lists all governmental agencies, organizations, and other individuals consulted in preparing the Draft EIR. Appendices This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft FIR as well as all technical reports prepared in support of the analysis. Impact Terminology This Draft FIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the proposed project: Standards of Significance: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at what level, or ''threshold'', an impact would be considered significant. Significance criteria used in this FIR include the CEQA Guidelines and Statutes; factual or scientific information; regulatory performance standards of local, state, and federal agencies; and the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan. Less Than Significant Impact A less than significant impact would cause no substantial change in the environment and no mitigation is required. Potential/,Significant Impact.'A potentially significant impact may cause a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Mitigation measures and/or project alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the environment. Significant Impact Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of project effects using specified standards of significance. Mitigation measures and/or project alternatives are identified to reduce project effects to the environment. Significant Unavoidable Impact A significant and unavoidable impact would result in a substantial change in the environment for which no feasible mitigation is available Page I-6 i ZF,Kzi.,Horn. ,,Ass We , Heritage Park Draft EIR Introduction to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, although mitigation may be available to lessen the degree of the impact. • Cumulative Impact- Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual affects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Pte^K—ey-Horn b and Ass wes.Inc Page I-7 Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description 2. Project Description The proposed project is a General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designations on a 5.85 acre portion of the 6.6-acre of the project site from Retail/Office (RO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposed project would include the demolition of an 1 10,000 square foot existing office complex known as the Heritage Park office complex and would construct 54 small-lot single family homes and a two-story 14,000 square foot office building on approximately 6.6 acres. 2.2 Regional Location The project site is located in the City of Dublin in northern Alameda County, near the center of the Tri Valley region. Regional access to the City is from Interstate 580, Interstate 680, and the Dublin/Pleasanton line of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Cities that border Dublin include San Ramon to the north (in Contra Costa County), Pleasanton to the south and Livermore to the east. The regional location is shown in Figure 2-1: Regional Location. 2.3 Project Location The project site is located at 1 1875 Dublin Boulevard within the Dub/in t///age Historic Area Specific P lan area. The project site is bound by San Ramon Road to the east; Dublin Boulevard to the north; and Donlon Way to the west; and Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south. The project vicinity map is shown in Figure 2-2: Project Vicinity, 2.4 Existing Setting / Baseline Conditions The project site currently contains a number of two-story commercial/office buildings totaling 1 10,000 square feet of commercial/office space. The buildings are wood frame and were constructed between 1978 and 1981. The remainder of the project site is comprised of surface parking and landscaping, including 137 trees. The project site is located approximately three to five feet below Donlon Way and slopes from west to east at an elevation of 375 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the western portion of the project site to 365 feet msl in the eastern portion of the project site. Existing conditions of the project site are shown in photographs in Figure 2-3a and Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel to the west across Donlon Way; a church, restaurant, and gas station bordering the project site to the north; residential and commercial across Dublin Boulevard to the north; office space to the east across San Ramon Road; and Dublin Creek and Interstate 580 to the south. Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses. ��Kimsey-Hom and A�.,es. Page 2-1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description 2.4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning General Plan Designations The City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan (City of Dublin 20 10) identifies the general locations, density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resources protection, recreation, and other uses. The project site is designated Retail/Office in the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan. The following land use designations surround the project site: Medium/High Density Residential (MHDR) to the north; Retail/Office (RO) and Parks/Public Recreation (PPR) to the west; and Retail/Office (RO) to the east. Surrounding land use designations are shown in Figure 3.8-1: General Plan Land Use Designations. Zoning According to the City of Dub/in Zoning Map, the project site is zoned Planned Development (PD). The zoning map of the project site is shown in Figure 3.8-2: Zoning Designation. Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan The Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Plan was developed by the City to guide future development to be sensitive to the area's historic past and to formalize the City's commitment to preserving and enhancing the area's remaining historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the future. The Specific Plan includes goals and objectives for the plan; an inventory of historic resources; and design standards and guidelines for future development, including guidelines for the preservation and enhancement of historic resources within the Specific Plan area. The project site is designated Retail/Office (RO) and zoned PD in the Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Plan. 2.5 Purpose and Objectives Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed project shall be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. The City of Dublin and the project applicant have provided the following project objectives for the proposed project: • Design new housing and commercial uses consistent with the Dub/in Vi//age Hstoric Area Specific Plan. • Ensure a viable infill project that provides for the creation of new housing in proximity to Downtown Dublin and public transit. • Create a community that is compatible in scale and design with surrounding land uses. Page 2-2 ►=rJ K-1e,Ha, d A-,Ie he Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description Establish a cohesive community feel in the project area through compliance with the Dublin Historic t///age Specific P lan design guidelines that ensure consistency between individual neighborhoods while allowing unique architectural expression. 2.6 Proposed Land Uses On November 20, 2012, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the General Plan land use designation for the portion of the project site that is planned for residential development from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential. Following demolition of the Heritage Park office complex, the 6.6 acre project site would be developed with 54 small-lot single-family homes on 5.85 acres, and a two-story 14,000 square foot office building on the remaining 0.75 acres. New drought-resistant landscaping and lighting is proposed to complement the building architecture. A site plan of the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-5: Site Plan. The General Plan Amendment Study will be completed concurrently with processing other entitlements requested by the project applicant. These include the following: • Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan • Site Development Review • Vesting Tentative Tract Map(s) • Heritage Tree Removal Permit • Development Agreement Single Family Residential Homes The two-story 54 single-family residential homes would range in size from +/- 2,012 to 3,167 square feet and would be designed consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan as well as architectural guidelines to be submitted by the project applicant. The proposed single family residential component of the proposed project would have an average density of 8.2 dwelling units per acre. The single-family residential homes would be comprised of Craftsman and American Farmhouse architectural styles and would be within the height limit of 45 feet (for more than five units) prescribed by Chapter 8.3 6, Development Regulations of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. Architectural elements and details would be constructed at a similar scale and character as the surrounding land uses. These include the use of front and upstairs patios and the use of varying building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. Garages would generally be recessed from the front of each home. The conceptual design PI � bndA—W— Page 2-3 Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description of the proposed single-family residential units is shown in Figure 2-6a and Figure 2-6b: Conceptual Residential Design. Commercial Office Building The proposed two-story commercial/office building would be located in the northwestern corner of the project site adjacent to Donlon Way. The commercial building would be comprised of 7,000 square feet per floor, for a total of 14,000 square feet. The ground level of the building would have a wrap-around porch element, with low sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby entry at the center of the building would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof. An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second level of the commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. The bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition roof. All windows would be vertically oriented. The conceptual design of the proposed commercial office building is shown in Figure 2-7a: and Figure 2-7b: Conceptual Commercial Office Building Design. Sound Walls The proposed project includes an I I-foot noise barrier along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site bordering Interstate 580 and San Ramon Road. The sound wall would continue in the northeastern portion of the project site between Lots #23 through #26. A five foot sound wall would be constructed along the northern border of the project site between Lots #19 through #22 and a parking lot located north of the project site. 2.7 Circulation and Parking Primary access to the project site would be provided off Donlon Way and would include an internal network of streets (Streets A through E). The residential component of the proposed project would include a total of 250 parking spaces, including 108 garage spaces, 108 driveway spaces, and 34 guest spaces. Additionally, six new publicly accessible parking spaces would be constructed along the east side of Donlon Way. The parking area for the proposed commercial building would be shared with the two adjacent properties located north of the project site (Church of Christ and the Frankie, Johnnie, and Luigi restaurant) adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. The parking lot would include 71 standard spaces; 40 compact spaces; and six accessible spaces for a total of 1 18 parking spaces. The project applicant proposes to enter into a shared parking agreement with the church and restaurant to share these spaces, taking into account hourly and day of week parking demands between the uses. i� K-ley_Horn Page 2-4 � nd As„� Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description 2.8 Infrastructure Improvements Stormwater The project site is divided into two drainage areas. These drainage areas will be maintained with the proposed improvements. Drainage Area I is 0.9 acres and it made up of the existing church and restaurant buildings. The total flow generated by Area I was estimated to be 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13). Total post development flow was estimated to be 3.4 cfs, for a net increase of 1.7 cfs. Area I discharges into an existing 27'' storm drain main located in Dublin Boulevard, which has a full flow capacity of 17.0 cfs. At present, it is not known yet if there is sufficient capacity in this 27'' storm drain to accommodate the additional flow. The project applicant plans to conduct a more details analysis as part of final design to determine if there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm drain main. If not, a portion of the runoff generated by Area I would be detained within a planned bioretention area to ensure that post development flows do not exceed pre-development flows off site. Drainage Area 2 is 7.1 acres and includes the existing office buildings and parking lots. The total flow generated by Area 2 was estimated to be 1 1.7 cfs. Stormwater from Area 2 would be retained in one of two bio-retention ponds before being discharged into an existing 24" storm drain pipe, located in the southeast corner of the site. This pipe connects to an existing concrete lined channel (Dublin Creek) located within the Caltrans right-of-way. The full flow capacity of the 24" outlet pipe was determined to be 12.4 cfs. The total post-development flows generated by Area 2 was determined to be 8.5 cfs, or a reduction of 3.2 cfs (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, I 1/24/13).The preliminary infrastructure improvement plans are shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan and Figure 2-9: Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan. Potable Water The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public water main located in Donlon Way. Water Demand As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project would result in a reduction in the water demand of 26,669 gallons per day as compared to the existing commercial/office uses at the project site. P�M^Kimiey-Horn ,,and Associates inc. Page 2-5 Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description Table 2-I: Existing and Proposed Water Demand Land Use Units and Acres Water Generation Rate Water Generation Existin g Land Use Commercial/Office 0.10 gallons per day/square 1 10,000 square feet (interior) and 3,125 1 1,000 gpd (interior) feet gallons per day per acre 20,625 gpd (exterior) 6.6 Acres (exterior) Proposed Land Use Commercial/Office 14,000 Square 0.10 gallons per day/square 1,400 gallons per day Feet feet (interior) and 3,125 (interior) 0.75 Acres gallons per day per acre 2,344 gallons per day exterior exterior Medium Density 54 units 225 gallons per day/dwelling 1,215 gallons per day Residential unit Subtotal 2,615 gpd (Interior) 2,344 gpd Exterior (8,385) gpd (Interior) (18,281) gpd (Exterior) Net Difference 26,669 d 1. Rates from DRSD do not take into account recycled water use. Source: DRSD and RBF Consulting,2013. Sanitary Sewer As shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the proposed project would connect to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon Way. The existing sewer is approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and therefore the proposed project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site sewer system would serve Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main located within Donlon Way. A separate sewer lateral would be installed for the commercial office building, which would connect to the existing main in Donlon Way. 2.9 Construction Activities Demolition, Grading and Excavation The proposed project would include grading and site preparation activities within the entire project site. This would include the demolition the two-story commercial/office buildings totaling and removal of asphalt and existing utilities, generating approximately 2,500 tons of mixed material. Figure 2-1 1: Demolition Plan presents the proposed demolition plan. Approximately 15,700 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the project site in order to elevate the grade on the north, east, and west parts of the project site. The proposed project also includes the construction of several retaining walls located throughout the project site including one at the southerly and easterly boundaries, which would be part of the proposed sound walls. The preliminary grading plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-1 1: Preliminary Grading Plan. Page 2-6 h C �ldAs �,�- Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description Tree Removal and Landscaping Based on the Preliminary Tree Report prepared by HortScience (October 2013) for the project applicant, the project site contains 137 trees. Of these, 33 were rated as Excellent, 37 Good, 40 Fair and 27 Poor. There are 19 Heritage trees as defined by Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code (Heritage Tree Ordinance). 18 of these Heritage trees are Coast redwood and one is a Coast live oak. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. Of these Heritage trees, five of them are California black walnuts located on the western edge of Donlon Way. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25- inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36'' box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. 2.10 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals Initial entitlements required for development at the project site in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan include the following actions to be taken by the Dublin City Council: EIR Certifcation.• Certification of the Heritage Park Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including findings that identify significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and mitigation measures that must be implemented as part of the Project, which will be reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and imposed as conditions of approval on subsequent discretionary approvals. This action will be adopted by resolution. Genera/Plan Amendment For the proposed residential portion of the project site, the City of Dublin General Plan will be amended to: 1) Change the text to reflect the new General Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential and 2) Change the General Plan Land Use Map from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential for the residential portion of the project site. Specific Plan Amendment For the proposed residential portion of the project site, the Dublin t/'l/age Historic Area Specific P/an will be amended to: 1) Change the text to reflect the new Specific Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential and 2) Change the Specific Plan Land Use Map from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential for the residential portion of the project site. ey-H-n C KimsAssociates ln Page 2-7 and Heritage Park Draft EIR Project Description • Zoning Ordinance Amendments The zoning designation would remain Planned Development; however, the zoning text would be amended to include provisions and development regulations as they pertain to the respective Retail/Office and Medium Density Residential portions of the project site. • Development Agreement(DA).-Approval of a DA between the City of Dublin and the project applicant. This action will be adopted by ordinance. • Vesting Tentative Map:Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. This action will be adopted by resolution. • Site Development Review. Approval of site and architectural review for the proposed project. This action will be adopted by resolution. • Grading and Improvement Plans Approval of site-specific grading plans and improvements for individual neighborhoods. This action is ministerial and approved by the City Engineer or Public Works Director. The FIR is also available for use by Responsible and Trustee Agencies or other agencies that may have jurisdiction or approval authority for the proposed project. These agencies may include: San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board • Dublin San Ramon Services District • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Page 2-8 P-Mn Kimsey-1J Dixon Grove SACRAME ® COUNT SONOMA ` NAPA Sebastopol ®COUNTY I ' COUNTY \ I RoPhnert (\X, ® \ Vacaville Cotati Na a ` SOLANO Sonoma p Fairfield COUNTY \ 101 �� ® Galt Petaluma Suisun City p` ® Rio Vista , J Vallejo ' Lo Novato ` Benicia �o MARIN \�__ _� QCOUNTY _ S Rafa Hercules X c and Martinez Antioch ®'.I Concord Stockton 101 Lafayette CONTRA Walnut Creek COSTA Q ` AQ 1 COUNTY JOUNTY �t B rkele Orinda counry usalito ®� Danville ,1 !� r Lathrop SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY �\ Oakland \ / San lam CI San Ramon , Francisco'! I� -. -'/ Tracy Dublin... -- - PZroject Site , Daly 101^ Sang ® Livermore City \LeandroL Hayward Pleasanton Pacifica `San ALAMEDA I / ,Mateo Union COUNTY I Millbrae / - � City D Hillsboroug R 0�,�m Newark Fremont Half Moorr ® _ Bay /1 Palo Milpitas '_Alto � 101 �® Los i STANISL Itos Santa � Clara couN QCupertino `) San Jose \\\/ Saratoga SANTA I OCLARA l\ COUNTY �I ® Los I Gatos Morgan 0 / Q -,.,� Hill T Scotts Valley SANTA CRUZ �� COUNTY Santa Capitola Gilroy 2 Cruz ^�\ Wa\ ville /�✓ - AdIk Hollister Heritage Park EIR Regional Location CONSULTING Figure 2-1 A3- =CAmpanY ll • x { I. . •t _, 1c ; y �e j oect � A i� .a• Site t- ker a. f L 'w4 M g i W U 0 IL O N 3 J C O 00 N YI C E L `. o cn 4J ;._ E 2 s v J. CL d O Q lf. +- O 0 3 E 00-0 E ' o l.1 o � E _ o cL Al- s _ U, 0 p O a Z N > D _ ' , ► w M rd .°' ii O V .o a s 4J � � O cc o H o u o ' 12 bA O 4J L O od v c c CL o 0 E �; ao v7 � 0 0 3 ' 2 > > L 0 E 0 ' r V E LA co N N O C L 0 tio L td C ri a ' Q 0 0 ro L 0O 0 V_m O -C L'C 0 � u ay N- C N N C coC N U b In U a 3 N 0 • U N > O U a Commercial ..•% mmer' mercial / ILO' I � ffice :•" . ". �`F e,� }, �,,- „�:.— fir,,. a II Dubl Heritage Par'k' � � and Museu a w f' AfM 4w- .. cw..v�m..ems- � �► i ,. a Source.City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2013) Heritage Park EIR Surrounding Land Uses CONSULTING Figure 2-4 p3--Company CHURCH OF CREST 20'- ] lio (TO RWAII) ■ LUIGI,TOO! (TO REMAIN) HERIT GE BOLLARDS HELL STATION PROPOSED s (TO RDAAIN) PARK -91AI OF WORK 3' 1'00 0 I is'A 'm� FUTURE CELL I T N71'4414"t 102.16- –TOWER SITE• 6 WE 164. AT&T 20*– 24� . 5'DEDICATI( HERITAGI CHALLENGE 19 20 Z--N71*44'14 73.19' NI IV 33' 200 DIARY PIA 2B PLAN x 21 ' ' 10'. ■ 21 PLAN 2A 22 24 PLAN 3B PLAN IA 25 PLAN 111 26 � PLAN 1C 24 -STREET A ETD SEE DETAIL A THIS SHEET 18 30 LM 2A 49 50 51 / I i 47 1 / PLAN 53 RAN 38 PLAN 1A PLAN 2B 52 PLAN 3B 28 2B RM 3C PLAN 3C 27 17 PLAN 1A PLAN 113 4.5' PPROPOWSED 4.5 48 RETANDIG WALL 2 16 PLAN 2B 53 3128 32 33 PLAN 2A PLAN 3' PLAN 1A PLAN IA 20' 47 PLAN 3A 54 KM 1A 3 PLAN 1B RM 5A 46 PROPOSED 14 2 37 ' I 4 13 PLAN 36 PLAN 3A PLAN 48 PLAN 1C I PLAN 2C PLAN to / 7zl *5. PROPOSED WZt RETANNRG � / / t PROPOSED 11'SdN1DWN1 12 PLAN 2A 5' S C CALAVERAS 39 FAULT PLAN PLAN 58 11 m T—p 40 PLAN 1B PLAN 2A ' t I 20' 42 PLAN 2C 41 9 PLM 31 APN 7 ,.941-1550-001-10 PLAN 5A 8 PLAN M 150.40' .325VIrW 2.27— PROPOSED 11'SOUNDWALL PROJECT BOUNDARY RIGHT—OF—WAY 1 PROPERTY UNE SIDEWALK.CURB&GUTTER --———————- LIMIT OF WORK BIO-RETENTION DRAINAGE AREA PROPOSED PAVEMENT Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR Site Plan CONSULTING Figure 2-5 A=- company µ �f i 5 =° no - Jw yam,` � • �4 w� dam s �e A' av in y ' � Z •J Rf'r I.. clip." _ >I 1�s61 urea Np fair GGGS z. O • 'it$q Ya 1 • �w r,pie EVER I 4 ■WA a ` eel 0 MUM • T e ej 1 7 ,° :1 R 1 T APP wool .• 1S t E iE r w t M ILI� fly M K'® Mi All $73®d9 .4 x •...�� ♦4 .. �4 1 R�:.. • y WE MW ■©m, '■o® ■i-M s MMM .+.• i ®.a � ��'i� 4a ■no ^k%� • a KIM rx alum Nam i MINE lot ��t• esr~ ` si. 1 e , ry ..r u 1 5 EX INV CHURCH OF .5 E J0 & PR%rrArCTE C, LUIGI TOO! SHELL STATION M RUM) J CB X 1FI I PROPM 2 INV 363.8 12'INV 36141�0t,WORK Ss 4 sS X=TOR BACKFLOW AT&T A;;ROAD SDI H 4 12'INV 364.0 A 9 19— 20 21 /1 .31615 TO RD" NV 22 23 Pump STATION FT 3W 6 10 24 8:INV WT%9.11 INV .6 '1 —INV IN 355.9 F SSMI-I 3 SSMH 5 8'INV 356.5 8'INV 357.4 El 351149 z w 36 CO 7 NV 1—/ 7. 3 1 NV 90.8 �5 18 T 49 51 29 28 I-- 52 0: 27 �z Ul/ 13.2 2 16 58 3- � 4831 9 n 2 13 32 3 0-- 15 4:6 54 34 '1 3 1 _ _ 46 35 14 43 ' i __-.. /' Nv 967 38 13 „ 27 45 44 V ML* 12 6 / i w 4 8'IN 98.3 I F12 -1 f 5 a w f T - INV 36TO 40 1 NV 961 EX 2'r W PK 42. INTO WIDENED OVAR UNDER 6 !tv*Po. 3=5 41 9 0.11 APN 7 941-1550-001-10 5 PROPOSED EXISTING PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE EXISTING PROPOSED _DESCRIPTION MANHOLE PROJECT BOUNDARY CATCH BASIN CURB,GUTTER,SIDEWALK&DRIVEWAYS M M FIELD INLET O BIO-RETENTION DRAINAGE AREA BUBBLE UP AREA DRAIN SD SD STORM DRAIN Ak FIRE HYDRANT SANITARY SEWER T TRASH WATER (D SUMP PUMP (FOR BIO-RETENTION 1 Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc(2014) Heritage Paris EIR 411) Preliminary Utility Plan CONSULTING Figure 2-8 A 3- =Company Vuu►1�` �! _�""I -��'"�- -"""�� J III p - LSII� I r ' I r r ■ r F i�/ � / �I► r Y IVA Vd qojo ��r ..... .. ... DUBLIN BOULEVARD I r CHURCH OF CHRIST r ' b b. (TO REMAIN) FRANM,JOHNNIE&LUIGI,TOO! b IX P VEYENT "'• x !, (ro rErNM) ro p I r; SHELL STATION ° v b (M w") b • 1 — i ss PPE t /////p 6205.. Pre , Po91DM mm — .....:.... .: E%'01 IF Sa PrE�: . .. :::.:. ..... ......................... FOAM 71 LF 1 b ... ........................... ro sE wEMOrEn) + + � b i � ^ O �w o b ( j (100 30, SF MIN FOR STOCUUMPROCESSING ° . 1 ., tE PflIPRD w b � EX 268 l!`W�PIPE TO BE R MOVED 1 °y ro eE REMOVED 4, SD 1 t I I > m ro BE 1 APN b b I EX 155 EE 2 PWE ,, 941-1550-001-10 .y� O TQ D.E. YPL � b EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED(BUILDING FOOTPRINT= 82,370 SFt) EXISTING PAVEMENT/SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED (166,740 SFt) ....«.-...-- EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED EX SD EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE TO REMAIN EX SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO REMAIN EX W EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO REMAIN Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR PF Demolition Plan CONSULTING Figure 2-10 A3- =Company DUBLIN 13OULEVARD GE I CHURCH OF aws TC P .4 1A TC 3 P"& (M BEM") TC 371.5 TC 3]CC e JOHNNIE F vw LLJIGI,TOO! SHELL STATION UN U TC (M REMAN) TC 371 TC 371 TC 370.8 TOP 1713.1-W "-_LUT OF WOMM B TC 372.5 TC 771.0 TC 372.4 C TC 371.] 941-1550-0 C EX 3N 2L_ nv TC TC 370.7 TC 369.5 - T TC 369.1 19 C P=1 ' 1 +_ P OFFICE c 1126 zu (I/)- ' TC 3743 B/W 37 pn., 22 23 7C 3M.9 P -1 24 TC 36 6,n"'vp p il., p 36 4 TC 8 365.3 371.6, �70.7 S7 STREET A % 3,33% TC 372.3 ID 5.2 366.8 i.317 B/W B/W 362.5 IN 1 36• B 374.;i8 49 $0 $1 P i74A p Me P 360 ..... FEMM fm OVOL" P 3M3 7' M7.5 29 TAIM 311�\ ;;2 P wX7A 2 37 4 9/W W P 368.8 27 17 7 B/W 3M 36- p B /w 5.� 2 I6 48 ER A p B/W 367.5 p 3 M 366.6 P 36L2 32 P M&O --F1W-356I B/W 365.7 P357.1 dl 1 -71 �47 365.9 D Sw� 15 314A. 34 'ii�'\ p 375.5 '36.7 D 366 z P 37.6 ZLJ -S 35 Vj 1 14 P 375 P 376.0 M 3740 L� RETN"G IN IOCKER C4 i TC BOARD OF FENCE P'Nia i xa7 3 4 p j64- 36 P J77.2 13 91W 367.7 1 "1/1-1 - P 376.2 EX TW 369.91 7 1 8 3163 C 374.5 12 369.6 81W 367.5 367" P 376.3 14�3jU :ij 5 373.8 -2.5� 371�5 TC 11 1117 P 376.0 I 1I 42 B/w 371-9 4d 0SM aw"I EX /PIPE MOVAM 0 3754 P 3M�_- ....... NARDM MEL 10 OVMRM P 375.5 B/W=4 F 377.4 9 P 375.1 941-1550-001-10, A -C- F I TC 37 3n. E �77 p 7" 4 J- f M 4'WiMM EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY RETAINING WALL SOUNDWALL SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER STORM DRAIN EX 369.29 x364.68 SPOT ELEVATIONS x 40 OVERLAND RELEASE DIRECTION I Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR Preliminary Grading Plan CONSULTING Figure 2-11 A-�- cumpany LIN BOULEVARD _ I CHURCH OF CHRIST — FRANM JOHNNIE&LUIGI,TOO! X R (TO REMAIN) (r0 ROM) i _j±: > SHELL STATION 1 HERTTAGE ; I \ = nD RE11N1) CID Izi JCID \\ HERITAGE TREE SUMMARY NOTES iR®9 SPECIES 7RUNKDIAME7ER PN.) PROPOSE ON VATHM PROJECT AREA 31 COAST RMWDOD� JO COAST REDWOOD 27 RE710RE W1 o PROJECT AREA COAST REDW000 PRESERVE EDGE OF PROJECT AREA;RESTADRANT 40 CDA REDWOOD D PRESER,E EDEE 6 PROJECT AREA:RESTAIMANT p1E EDGE OF PROJECT AREk AT&T PACUTY . MAST DRMWOOD 28 22 �MOVE VEM PROJECT- OMUWST UTHN' V`�/� / ^- •m n COAST REDWOOD 30 AREA COAST R 90 EIYYOOD 27 REMOVE WTIDI AREA RV RO ZB yONE RIM PECT AREA 91 COW REDWOOD REhM WM PROJECT AREA 92 MAST REDw9DD 93 COAST REDWOOD 32 REMOVE M7NN PROJECT AREA 94 CAST REDWOOD 30 RELOW WT W PROECT AREA n IEyOAE W1TIW,PROJECT AREA EXISTING NON—HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED 95 COAST"`DM ss Garr RmWaaD Sl REypyE MI➢IN PEOJECT AREA 97 COST REDWOOD 29 SNOW ERT11M PROJECT AREA EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED COAST gEDWOro REWaE INTO PROJECT AREA ,Op fQLOYE wTNM RIQECT AREA 338 EXISTING NON—HERITAGE TREE TO BE PRESERVED CAST REDWOOD 32 RaM WONM PROJECT AREA 124 CAST REDWOOD 30 125 CAST IEDWOC 31 RDJCNE W1TO PROJECT AREA ® OWING HERITAGE TREE TO BE PRESERVED raow MTNM PROJECT AREA 124 C WAST REDOOD JO Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR 0 Tree Removal Plan CONSULTING Figure 2 A=company FAULT LINE AND SETBACKS ,TRASH RECEPTACLE g AREA WITH CONCRETE 19 2O WOE(' ` ,I VING,TYP & PPA • ~v i OF n PI.N12 RANS - 21 O K FLOWERING ACCENT F'^C 6I `PLAN2 22 23 24 TREE VG j GgAN pLM17 2C r.-q-,r- ^1 9 T PuNJ, ACCENTTREE `MIT OF WOK 26 PLAN, ENTRY PILASTERS -. . _ .-. '-__• _ '.. 6'GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE AT RETAINING 16 ' WALL PLAN PLAN, 1 N1 29 1 9ALT PLAN - . MA 6-UNIT CLUSTER Rµ PLAN MAILBOX , o SALT PLAN; 27 G PLAN, 2 PLAN 4 482 53 31 32 33 0 LOW FRONT GATE AND 16 PLAN PLAN I O HEDGE ALONG PLAN RANI DONOLON WAY AND - 3 i LOOP ROAD 47 54 -x1A5rI PLAN; IN/tl _ PLAN 34 1 O 3 4z PLAN 5 LG D O - '--12 46 35 43 PLLµ, Q Z - • PLAN, , p 4 38 PLAN. 13 PUN. 36 PLAN 9 PLAN S GOOD NEIGHBOR G FACE BETWEEN LOTS, 12 PLAN 6'WOOD GATE ON 0; __.. GARAGE SIDE OF PLAN 39 UNIT.TYP 11 40 TRASH RECEPTACLE PIAN PLAN 2 AREA WITH CONCRETE PAD&PAVING,TYP • 0 42 ,q, $OUNDWALL PLAN PUW2 PLAN L7 _ (2)1 Si1NR CLUSTER MAILBOX , -_.. ACCENTTREE �QCe \C • - ''.. 9 PLAN FLOWERING ACCENT TREE 0\ 7 G PLNI3 BID DETENTION AREA PLAN 5 PLµ, PROPOSED SHRUBS PALETTE ' LIMIT OF WORK BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME SIZE SPACING SHRUBS IGAL Ir O.C. DWARF LILY OF THE NILE &GAL ;•O.C. — — AGAPANTHUS'PETER PAN' LILY OF THE NILE AGAPANTHUS'MIDKNIGHT BLUE' BOXWOOD 5GAL vO.C. BUXUS M.J.'GREEN BEAUTY' PINK BREATH OF HEAVEN &GAL ;'O.C. COLEONEMA PULCHRUM COMPACT ESCALLONIA SGAL ;'O.C. ESCALLONIA COMPAKTA FORTNIGHT LILY 1 GAL S O.C. PROPOSED TREE PALETTE FETUCA GARDENIA ,GAL 7O.C.BLUE FIETSSP. UCA GARDENIA ;GAL YO.C. GARDENIA SP. i GAL O.C. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME GREVILLEA ' SIZE CITY GAURA LINDHEIMERI GAURA S 2'GAL 4'O.C. GREVILLEA SP. I GAL Ir O.C. HEMEROCALLIS HYBRIDS EVERGREEN OAVLILLY &GAL .'O.C. SYMBOL LIRIOPE MUSCARI BLUE TURF LILY SGAL CO.C. STREET TREE LOROPETALUM C.'RAZZELBERRI' CHINESE FRINGE FLOWER ;GAL Y O.C. HARBOR DWARF NANDINA SGILL TO.C. O pLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24"BOX 8 NANDINA IX HARBOR DWARF' CAT MINT 4'O.C. NEPETA'SIX HILLS GIANT' SWEET OLIVE i GAL OSMANTHUS FRAGRANS IGAL 78'O.C. DWARF NEW ZEALAND FLA% &GAL Ir O.C. O pLATANUB RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 36"BOX S PHORMIUM 700 SPRATT' DWARF NEW ZEALAND FIAX PHORMIUM TOM THUMB' NEW ZEALAND FLAX &GAL SOC. PHORMIUM'MAORI SUNRISE' SGAL S'O.C. PHOTINIA FRASERII PHOTINIA SO FRONT YARDIACCENT TREE VARIEGATED PITTOSPORUM s GOAL ;•D.C. 15 GAL 22 PITTOSPORUM T.'VARIEGATA' ACER PALMATUM JAPANESE MAPLE IS GAL PITTOSPORUM T.'WHEELERS DWARF DWARF PITTOSPORUM SGAL 4'O.C. O CARPINUS BETELUS HORNBEAM 15 GAL PODOCARPUS M.MAKI YEW PINE GAL 4'O.C. LAGERSTOREMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLE 15 GAL RHAPHIOLEPIS SP. INDIA HAWTHORN I GAL S O.C. PRUNUS C.'KRAUTER VESUVIUS' PURPLE LEAF PLUM CARPET ROSE S GAL ;•O.C. 15 GAL ROSA SP. GERMANDER PVRUS C.CHANTICLEER FLOWERING PEAR i5GAL TEUCRIUM F.'COMPACTUM' SGAL SO.C. TRISTANIOPSIS LAURINA WATER GUM VIBURNUM T.'SPRING BOUQUET' LAURUSTINUS 5GAL CO.C. PISTACHE CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE 24"BOX 16 WESTRI.G,TA FRUTICOSA COAST ROSEMARY 24"BOX MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 86 VINES 15 GAL i GAL S O.C. LAGERSTROEMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLE TRALHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDIES STAR JASMINE SGAL 20 O ACER PALMATUM JAPANESE MAPLE 15GAL GROUNDCOVERS rD.C. NANDINA DOMESTICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO BEARBERRY I GAL' ARC7OSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI WILD STRAWBERRY CLUMPING I GAL ,S•O.C. FRA 01 CHILOENSIS IGAL 1Y O.C. SCREENING TREE GAZANIA'WHIRO WHITEALIAN A ;'D.C. REDWOOD 24"BOX & AUSTRALIAN BLUEBELL CREEPER 1 GAL SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS SOLLVA HETEROPHYLLA ' Source:Carlson,Barbee&Gibson,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR Landscape Plan CONSULTING Figure 2-13 A—Cumpany Heritage Park Draft EIR Environmental Setting, Impacts& Mitigation Measures 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts & Mitigation Measures Each environmental section in this chapter presents information in four parts: • Environmental Setting - provides a general overview of the conditions on and adjacent to the planning area. • Regulatory Setting — describes the local, state and federal regulations which are relevant to the proposed project. • Relevant Project Characteristics - provides a more detailed description of the elements of the proposed project that are relevant to the impact analysis for a particular topic. Relevant project information may relate to the size, characteristics and/or location of project elements. Any project elements that may cause impacts, as well as those that may serve to minimize impacts, are identified. • Impacts and Mitigation Measures - provides a brief description of standards that were used to evaluate whether an impact is considered significant based on standards identified in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and agency policy or regulations. Impacts are identified and analyzed. Mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant or significant impacts are identified, as well as the significance of the impact after implementation of mitigation measures. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant unavoidable impact. Referenced figures are presented at the end of each section. C„a mley Horn dA—w- Page 3-1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics 3.1 Aesthetics This section describes the aesthetic and visual resources of the project site and its surroundings, and discusses the potential aesthetic impacts that may result with implementation of the proposed project. The primary visual and aesthetic issues are related to redevelopment of the proposed project and its visibility from Interstate 580 to the south and from the Heritage Park and Museums located to the west of the project site. Visual impacts were evaluated using a combination of a site reconnaissance, building elevations and architectural renderings prepared by the project applicant, review of photo documentation and aerial photographs, and a review of existing policy documents (e.g. City of Dublin General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan). Environmental Setting Visual Image Visual images dominate an observer's impression of a district, city, or region. To understand how visual images influence an observers impression, the aesthetic value of an area must first be defined. Aesthetic value is a measure of visual character and scenic quality combined with a viewer's response to the area. Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure to a viewshed varies with the number of viewers, the number of views seen, the distance of the views, and the viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity is related to the extent of the public's concern for particular visual resources. Both natural landscapes and the built environment contribute to perceived visual images and aesthetics value of a view. Aesthetic value is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Visual images and their perceived visual quality can vary significantly seasonally and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and the elements that compose the resource change. Definition of Terms Numerous methods have been developed to characterize the scenic quality of a visual resource and the viewer response to that resource. However, no standard approach to visual analysis exists. Instead, several approaches that focus on different visual aspects or issues are used. One commonly used set of criteria includes vividness, intactness, and unity. • Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking or distinctive visual patterns. • Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings. Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape. ��Krm!ey-Horn h � Ass—ales Inc Page 3-3 Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics Regional Visual Setting The City of Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley region of the East San Francisco Bay Area. The visual setting of the region is defined by several urban communities (Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, Dublin, and San Ramon) that are surrounded by hillsides, vineyards, and natural open space. Project Setting The project site is flat and is developed with a number of two-story commercial office buildings. The buildings are generally set back from the street edge are a light grey color. The surface parking lots are surrounding by landscaping which largely consists of trees (137 in total) and lawn. A number of pedestrian pathways provide access from the perimeter sidewalk to the interior building spaces. Photographs of the existing project site are shown in Figure 2-3a and Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel to the west across Donlon Way; a church, restaurant, and gas station bordering the project site to the north; residential and commercial across Dublin Boulevard to the north; office space to the east across San Ramon Road; and Dublin Creek and Interstate 580 to the south. Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses. Scenic Vistas A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and buildings. The term "vista" generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area. There are no designated scenic vistas in the project vicinity. Scenic Resources and Roadways According to the City of Dublin General Plan, 1-580, 1-680, and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are primary routes from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City. Therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected. Interstate 680 (1-680) is also designated as a State Scenic Highway. According to the State Scenic Highway website, ''the scenic aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills of the Contra Costa range contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and east.'' While not officially listed, 1-580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway. Section 5.6, Implementing Policy B in the City of Dublin General Plan requires that design review be conducted for all projects visible from a designated scenic route. The project site is partially visible from 1-580. The project site does not contain any natural resources, monuments, or unique buildings that would be classified as scenic resources. h , nd As—ate Inc Page 3-4 Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics Light and Glare Lighting nuisances can generally be categorized by the following: • Glare — Intense light that shines directly, or is reflected from a surface into a person's eyes; • ''Skyglow''/Nighttime Illumination — Artificial lighting from urbanized sources that alters the rural landscape in sufficient quantity to cause lighting of the nighttime sky and reduction of visibility of stars and other astronomical features; and • "Spillover'' Lighting — Artificial lighting that spills over onto adjacent properties, which could interrupt sleeping patterns or cause nuisances to neighboring residents. The project site is part of a city and region that contributes to nighttime lighting. Existing office buildings at the project site that have reflective surfaces can also cause glare at certain times of the day based on the location and angle of the sun. Regulatory Setting State Streets and Highway Code, Section 260 et seg. - State Scenic Highway Program The California Scenic Highway Program (CSHP) was created by the Legislature in 1963 with the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic highway corridors from change, which diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The stated intent (Streets and Highway Code Section 260) of the California Scenic Highway Program is to protect and enhance California's natural beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the State's scenic resources. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. The CSHP includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263.1 of the Streets and Highways Code. State highways nominated for scenic designation must first be on the statutory list of highways eligible for scenic designation in the State Scenic Highway System. County highways nominated for scenic designation that are believed to have outstanding scenic values are considered eligible and do not require any legislative action. Both State and county highway nominations follow the same process and have the same requirements. Scenic highway nominations are evaluated using the following criteria: The State or county highway consists of a scenic corridor that is comprised of a memorable landscape that showcases the natural scenic beauty or agriculture of California (see definition for ''vividness'', under Section III: Step 1, Visual Assessment). M„K-ley-Hem b� -d ASaoao-M, Page 3-5 Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics • Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor (see definitions for ''intactness" and "unity'' below, under Section III. Step I: Visual Assessment). • Demonstration of strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation. • The length of the proposed scenic highway is not less than a mile and is not segmented. The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. According to the California Department of Transportation (Ca/trans) Scenic Highway Program (CSHP), Interstate 680 is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. While not officially listed Interstate 580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway. Local Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan The following design guidelines for residential, commercial and mixed-use land uses in the Dublin Vil/age Historic Area Specific Plan would be applicable to the proposed project. Residential Design Guidelines The residential design guidelines require that future single family homes within the Specific Plan area honor the image and character of historic Dublin (e.g. small to moderate-sized single family homes, etc.). Multi-family uses should be designed to resemble a single family home and the site design should resemble a more traditional neighborhood character (e.g. streets have sidewalks, etc.). Residential design guidelines include but are not limited to the following: a Incorporation of Local Vernacular, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman/California Bungalow architectural styles; M Be constructed with pedestrian-oriented mass and scale; K Ensure compatibility between building forms and architectural design of the home; 9 Ensure design of side and rear facades; r Construction of one to two-story homes; Use of building materials reflect the traditional and historic character of Dublin Village; 9 Use of simple building colors that were commonly used in the 1800s and 1900s; 6 Incorporation of window fenestration that is compatible with the architectural style of the home; and Incorporation of detached garages. P�On K,mley-Horn Page 3-6 \� antl ASSOaa;es Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics Commercial and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines Commercial and mixed-use design guidelines encourage buildings to have a strong relationship with the street and sidewalk. Site planning guidelines address a range of design topics including: • Parking lots behind buildings; • Building footprints; • Driveway locations; • Parking lot driveways; • Shared driveways; • Shared parking; • Pedestrian circulation; • Loading facilities; • Trash disposal areas; • Land use buffers; and • Heritage trees and resources. Commercial and mixed-use design guidelines encourage commercial architecture to emulate the vernacular architecture that once existed in Dublin Village (e.g. relatively simple buildings with a pedestrian-oriented scale). Porches are highly recommended, as well as wood framed construction (e.g. vertical wood siding, wood shingle siding, and brick or stone as a building base). General Design Guidelines General design guidelines applicable to both residential and commercial and mixed-use development include lighting standards that address the appropriate use of light (e.g. designed to be directed and shielded and the control of off-site glare), as well as landscaping guidelines that addresses the use of indigenous drought-tolerant plant material, enhancement of landscaping around walkways, the use of fencing and screens, parking lot pavement materials, and land use buffers. City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to aesthetics and visual character within the project area. 5.6: Guiding Policy A. Incorporate County-designated scenic routes, and the proposed Fallon Road extension, in the General Plan as adopted City-designated scenic routes, and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers. 5.6: Implementing Policy B. Exercise design review of all projects visible from a designated scenic route. P-Mn Ki Il y-Flom �M �d As �tl s t,c Page - Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics In addition to the above policies, the General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element contains a number of policies related to urban design and visual character. Policies address a range of topics, including: • Site and Building Design; • Landscaping and Natural Features; • Gathering and Open Space Areas; • Signage, Lighting, and Art; • Parking and Circulation; and • Villages. Relevant Project Characteristics The proposed project would demolish the existing office buildings and construct 54 two- story single family residential units, as well as a two-story 14,000 square foot commercial office building. The proposed project would also include grading and site preparation activities, including the removal of 107 trees. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQI Guidelines Appendix G, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resource, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings, and/or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare, such that it poses a hazard or nuisance. Methodology The analysis of potential aesthetic impacts within this section is based on a site reconnaissance of the project site and surrounding area, a review of policies and guidelines in both the City of Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan, and review of the site plans including the building elevations and architectural renderings of proposed project. Potential impacts were assessed by forecasting the anticipated appearance of future development within the project site based on the site plan and conceptual elevations to evaluate the aesthetic value of the project site. Nighttime lighting and day and nighttime I� Kiml y HO Page 3-8 h � -dASSa,W- Heritage Parlc Draft FIR Aesthetics glare were assessed qualitatively and existing sources of light and glare were identified and quantified where possible. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista According to the City of Dublin General Plan, there are no designated scenic vistas in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Damage to Scenic Resources along Scenic Highways Impact 3.1-1: Portions of the project site may be visible from Interstate 580 (1- 580), which is eligible as a State Scenic Highway and locally designated scenic routes. However, because the project site is already developed and would be required to comply with development standards and design guidelines in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, no scenic resources would be adversely affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact. Traveling west on 1-580, the project site is generally shielded from view due to existing trees and other vegetation, however, there is a brief momentary view of the southern office building. Traveling east on 1-580, views of the project site are blocked by the San Ramon Road overpass. After the overpass, the existing site is partially visible for a brief period. The project site is most noticeable along the eastbound on-ramp of 1-580 adjacent to San Ramon Road. In compliance with the General Plan, all projects that are visible from 1-580 would be subject to design review per the policy of the General Plan. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the development standards and design guidelines in the Dublin V1/age Historic Area Specific Plan, including building height and massing, site planning, architecture, lighting, and landscaping. With implementation of these development standards and design guidelines, and the requirement for design review as part of the permitting process, the proposed project would improve the visual appearance of the site and be more consistent with the visual character of the surrounding residential and commercial land uses. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Degradation of the Visual Character of the Project Site and Surrounding Area Impact 3.1-2: Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing aesthetic character of the project site by redeveloping the project site from eight commercial office buildings to a combination of residential and office development. The Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific P/an includes development standards and design guidelines /6Mn K-1.y-Mom ►� A95ooi8tB5 Page 3-9 Heritage Park Draft FIR Aesthetics that are designed to create a more visually appealing environment within the planning area, which includes future development at the project site. With implementation of these design standards and guidelines, the proposed project is not anticipated to degrade the visual character of the project site and surrounding uses and is therefore considered a less than significant impact. The existing two-story office buildings were constructed between 1978 and 1981 and generally look dated and to be of poor architectural character. These buildings were constructed with wood siding and flat roofs. Perimeter balconies surround most of the office spaces resulting in dark void spaces on the ground level. The facades have little architectural detail and consist of long, unarticulated "walls The buildings are set back from the street and contain large open surface parking. From an urban design perspective, the project site is not pedestrian-friendly and would be considered incompatible with the City's design standards as described in the General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element as well as the development standards and design guidelines as described in the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan. The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan. The proposed 54 single family residential homes would be two stories and comprised of Craftsman and American Farmhouse style. Architectural elements and details are consistent with these architectural styles providing variation in building form and providing an appropriate scale with surrounding land uses (e.g. Heritage Park and Museums). Proposed architectural details include the use of front and upstairs patios and the use of different building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. The proposed two-story 14,000 square foot commercial office would have a wrap-around porch element, with low sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby entry at the center of the building would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof. An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second level of the commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. The bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition roof. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are Heritage trees. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. P�Z„K,m!ey-Horn antl A--l-Inc Page 3-10 Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36" box, species to be determined) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle,Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. The overall change in the visual character of the project site from commercial/office uses to a combination of residential and commercial/office uses would result in a change to the character of the project site. However, the proposed project would be considered a beneficial change in that it would be more consistent with the design guidelines and historic-contextual design intended in the Dub/in I/"//age Historic Area Specific P/an and thereby, would complement the surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the degradation of the visual character of the project site, which would be considered a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Light and Glare Impact 3.1-3: The project site and its surroundings are currently developed with buildings and site improvements that currently generate daytime and night-time light and glare. Additional sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced with implementation of the proposed project. The Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Ran includes design guidelines to reduce light and glare. With implementation of these design guidelines, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to light and glare. Implementation of the proposed project result in a slight increase in daytime and nighttime light and glare. The main sources of daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from structures with reflective surfaces, such as windows. The main sources of nighttime light and glare would be from additional lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and external building lights from proposed residential uses, parking lot lights, street lighting, site lighting, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., vehicle headlights), and any new security lighting associated with the new commercial building. The Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan includes design guidelines that address lighting within the project site, including, site lighting (e.g. ensuring that lighting is directed and shielded) and glare (e.g. designing lighting so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is controlled. The proposed project would be required to comply with these lighting standards by demonstrating the proposed exterior lighting is non-intrusive while still providing an adequate amount of light. Compliance with the design guidelines would ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and glare which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. PVZ"K,mley-Hw h� .ndASSoo.1-I- Page 3-1 1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Aesthetics /��Kimiey-Nan �� and Assocn;es.Inc Page 3-12 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality 3.2 Air Quality This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on air quality, including short-term construction emissions, long-term operational impacts, and potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The air quality modeling for the proposed project is included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR. Environmental Setting Regional Setting San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin The City of Dublin is located in eastern Alameda County, which is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (hereinafter "Basin"). The Basin includes San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, and Marin counties, and forms a climatological sub-region. This climatological sub-region stretches from Richmond to San Leandro, bounded to the west by the San Francisco Bay and to the east by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills have a ridgeline height of approximately 1,500 feet, a significant barrier to air flow. The most densely populated area of the sub-region lies in a strip of land between the bay and the lower hills. High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling these emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area's attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measures in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 1o) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2_5). Elevated concentrations of PM io and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function in children. Topography and Meteorology Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climatological conditions, the meteorological influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released. The Basin is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the potential for high levels of regional and local air pollutants. The Basin is characterized by a complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and the San Francisco Bay. It is generally bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Coast Ranges, and on the east and south by the Diablo Range. P�=„K, ey-Horn b� „dASSOOmt— Page 3-13 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Climate in the Basin is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, as well as the moderating effects of the adjacent oceanic heat reservoir. Mild summers and winters, moderate windfall, daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity characterize regional climatic conditions. In summer, when the high pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, fog forms in the morning and temperatures are mild. In winter, when the high pressure cell is weakest and farthest south, occasional rain storms occur. In the City of Dublin, the climate is typically warm during summer, when temperatures tend to be in the 70s and 80s, and cool during winter, when temperatures tend to be in the 50s. The warmest month of the year is July with an average maximum temperature of 89 degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest month of the year is December with an average minimum temperature of 39 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature variations between night and day tend to be moderate during summer with a difference that can reach 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and moderate during winter with a difference of approximately 19 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual average precipitation in Dublin is 15.33 inches. Rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year. The wettest month of the year is February, with an average rainfall of 2.98 inches (Weather Channel 2013). Sunlight The presence and intensity of sunlight is another important factor that affects air pollution. Typically, ozone is formed at higher temperatures. In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight and warm temperatures, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including ozone. Temperature Inversions An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). The highest air pollutant concentrations in the Basin generally occur during inversions. Under ideal meteorological conditions and irrespective of topography, pollutants emitted into the air would be mixed and dispersed into the upper atmosphere. However, the region experiences temperature inversions in which pollutants are trapped and accumulate close to the ground. The inversion, a layer of warm, dry air overlaying cool, moist marine air, is a normal condition in the Basin. The cool, damp, and hazy sea air capped by coastal clouds is heavier than the warm, clear air that acts as a lid through which the marine layer cannot rise. Local Ambient Air Quality - - - - Criteria Air Pollutants Local ambient air quality is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality management District (BAAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); refer to Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels. CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air- Page 3-I4 �ZF,KmeyHo,r ssociates nd A .I- Heritage Park Draft FIR Air Quality monitoring stations across the State. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above-ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Table 3.2-I: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels Standards (Allowable Amount) Days (Samples) Pollutant Year Maximum i State/Federal California Federal Concentration Standards was Primary Exceeded Ozone (03) 2010 0.150 ppm 3/1 1 hour Z 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 2011 0.115 3/0 2012 0.102 2/0 Ozone (03) 2010 0.098 ppm 6/3 8 hour Z 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 2011 0.085 9/2 2012 0.090 4/3 Carbon 2010 1.49 ppm 0/0 Monoxide(CO) 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 2011 Not Available NA 8 hour 3 (8 hour) (8 hour) 2012 Not Available NA Carbon 2010 0/0 35 ppm 20 ppm 2.40 ppm Monoxide(CO) 2011 0/0 I hour 3 for I hour for I hour 2012 0.55 0/0 Nitrogen 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 2010 0.058 ppm 0/NA Dioxide(NO2) z (1 hour) (I hour) 2011 0.057 0/NA 2012 0.043 0/NA Particulate 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 2010 42.8 pg/m3 0/0 Matter(PM1()) 3.41 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2011 Not Available NA 2012 Not Available NA I pg 3 Fine Particulate (annual 35 pg/m3 201 34.7 NA/0 Matter(PM2.5) 2'S arithmetic (24 hours) 201 1 1 45..4 4 NA/2 2012 31.1 NA/0 mean) Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 2010 0.003 ppm 0/0 (SO2) 3 (24 hours) (24 hours) 2011 Not Available NA 2012 Not Available NA Notes: 1. Maximum concentrations are measured over the same period as the California standard. 2. Livermore Monitoring Station is located at 793 Rincon Avenue,Livermore,California 94550. 3. Berkley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors SO2 and is located at 1340 Sixth Street, Berkeley,California 94710. 4. PMIO exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20,2002. 5. PM 10 and PM2s exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded,not days. Source:Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System,Summaries from 2010 to 2012 as found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ The nearest monitoring station to the project site is located in the City of Livermore at 793 Rincon Avenue. This station monitors all of the criteria pollutants except for PM 10 and Sulfur Dioxide (S02). The Berkeley Monitoring Station is the only station in the San Francisco Air Basin that monitors S02 and is included in Table 3.2-1: Local Ambient Air Quality Levels. The following air quality information briefly describes the various types of pollutants monitored at the local stations. P1 F1 Ki Il y-Horn �= and Associates.Inc Page 3-15 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Ozone Ozone occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth's surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately ten miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the "good" ozone) layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B). ''Bad'' ozone is a photochemical pollutant, and needs VOCs, NOx, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are ozone precursors. VOCs and NOx are emitted from various sources throughout the area. To reduce ozone concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these ozone precursors. Significant ozone formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High ozone concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins. While ozone in the stratosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. Many respiratory ailments, as well as cardiovascular disease, are aggravated by exposure to high ozone levels. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems (such as forests and foothill communities) and damages agricultural crops and some man- made materials (such as rubber, paint, and plastics). Societal costs from ozone damage include increased healthcare costs, the loss of human and animal life, accelerated replacement of industrial equipment, and reduced crop yields. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon- based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. At high concentrations, CO can reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and cause headaches, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone, and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often used interchangeably with NOx, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g. motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NOx can irritate and damage the lungs, and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NOx concentrations that are much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and OP�2"a—ey-Horn Page 3-16 ► r,d As Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction. Coarse Particulate Matter(PMio) PM 10 refers to suspended particulate matter (PM) which is smaller than 10 microns. PMio arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PMio scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. Fine Particulate Matter(PM2.5) Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter, both Federal and State standards have been created for PM2.5. The impacts of fine particulate matter primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide gases (SOX), formed primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (primarily coal and oil), and during metal smelting and other industrial processes. Sulfur dioxide (S02) is often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOX). The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOX are effects on breathing, respiratory illness, diminishment of pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. Major subgroups of the population that are most sensitive to SOX are individuals with cardiovascular disease or chronic lung disease (such as bronchitis or emphysema), as well as children and the elderly. Emissions of SOX also can damage the foliage of trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOX and NOX are the major precursors to acid rain, which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and the accelerated corrosion of buildings and public monuments. Sulfur oxides can react to form sulfates, which significantly reduce visibility. Other Pollutants CARIB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' (TACs) with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Additionally, because ambient concentrations of lead have decreased in the Basin, these pollutants are not measured at the monitoring stations. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a toxic air contaminant is "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health". In addition, substances that have been listed as Federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under Z„Kiml V Horn \� and Assoaates.Inc Page 3-17 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality the State's air toxics program pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code. TACs can cause various cancers, depending on the particular chemicals, their type, and duration of exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause other health effects over the short or long term. TACs of particular concern for posing health risks in California are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para- dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perch lorethylene, and diesel particulate matter. Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemical compounds with sufficiently high vapor pressure such that they will tend to vaporize and enter ambient air under standard conditions. A wide range of carbon-based molecules, such as aldehydes, ketones, and hydrocarbons are VOCs. Hydrocarbons are organic gases, liquids, or solids that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. A subset of VOCs are reactive in the context of ozone formation at urban (and possibly regional) scales. Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are defined to be those VOCs that are regulated because they lead to ozone formation. Both ROGs and VOCs can be emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of VOCs are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation). Reactive VOCs may result in the formation of ozone and its related health effects. Carcinogenic forms of VOCs are considered toxic air contaminants ("air toxics''). Some reactive VOCs are also toxic; an example is benzene, which is both a reactive VOC and a carcinogen. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations (or sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long- term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include residential, institutional, and recreational/park uses. Several multi-family units are located approximately 210 feet north of the project site along Dublin Boulevard, and two single-family residences are located approximately 100 feet to the southwest along Donlon Way. The Heritage Park and Museum is located approximately 105 feet to the west of the project site. The Church of Christ is located approximately 95 feet north of the project site along Dublin Boulevard, and the Dublin Cemetery is located approximately 280 feet to the west along Donlon Way. Page 3-18 ��.�dA Hon �� nd Associates.IrK Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Odors Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm; however, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors include wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feed lots/dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, and no requirements for their control are included in State and Federal air quality regulations. However, the BAAQMD has identified land use and operation types that are typically associated with producing odors. No facilities in the project vicinity have been reported as releasing offensive odors. Additionally, the proposed project does not propose uses identified by the BAAQMD as sources of odors. Regulatory Setting Regulatory oversight for air quality in the Basin rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX office at the Federal level, CARB at the State level, and with the BAAQMD at the regional level. Federal Environmental Protection Agency The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the Federal level is the Clean Air Act (FCAA) and, in particular, the 1990 amendments to the FCAA and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that it establishes. These standards identify levels of air quality for "criteria'' pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The criteria pollutants are 03, CO, NO2 (a form of NOX), S02 (a form of SOX), PMio, PM2.5, and lead (Pb); refer to Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA also has regulatory and enforcement J urisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf) and those that are under the exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. State California Air Resources Board CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates. Ki `,-Ham h aid A M Page 3-19 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is responsible for regulating stationary, indirect, and area sources of pollution within the Basin. The BAAQMD is one out of 35 air quality management districts that have prepared Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the five percent annual reduction goal required by the CCAA. The following notes efforts by the BAAQMD to address ozone and ozone precursors through the implementation of the Ozone Strategy and Clean Ait Plan. Page 3-20 �C FI--A,--°W-1� Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Califomia' Feder-a12 Pollutant Averaging Time s Attainment 4 Attainment Standard Status Standards Status I Hour 0.09 ppm 180 p/m3) Nonattainment N/A' N/A5 Ozone(03) 8 Hours 0.07 ppm 137 /m3 N/A 0.075 ppm 147 /m3 Nonattainment Particulate Matter 24 Hours 50µ /m3 Nonattainment 150 P/M3 Unclassified (PMio) Annual Arithmetic 20µg/m3 Nonattainment N/A' Unclassified Mean Fine Particulate 24 Hours No Separate State Standard 35 /m3 Nonattainment Matter(PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic 12µg/m3 Nonattainment 12.0µg/m3 Nonattainment Mean 8 Hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Unclassifed/ Carbon Monoxide Attainment (CO) I Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Unclassified/ Attainment Dioxide Nitrogen Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm( µg )57 /m3 ppm ( µg N/A 0.053 100 /m3 Unclassified/ g Mean ) Attainment (N 0,) I Hour 0.18 m 339 /m3 Attainment 100 b 188 /m3 N/A Lead(Pb) 30 days average 1.5 /m3 Attainment N/A 3 N/A Calendar Quarter N/A N/A 1.5 /m N/A 24 Hours 0.04 ppm 105 /m3 Attainment 0.14 ppm Attainment Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hours N/A N/A N/A Attainment (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 m 655 /m3 Attainment 75 ppb 196 /m3 N/A Annual Arithmetic N/A N/A 0.030 ppm Attainment Mean Visibility-Reducing 8 Hours(10 a.m.to Extinction coefficient= Particles 6 .m.,PST 0.23 km @<70%RH Unclassified No Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment Federal Hydrogen Sulfide I Hour 0.03 ppm 42µ /m3 Unclassified Standards Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm 26 /m3 N/A Notes: µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter, ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; km = kilometer(s); RH = relative humidity; PST= Pacific Standard Time; N/A = Not Applicable 1. California standards for ozone,carbon monoxide(except Lake Tahoe),sulfur dioxide(I-and 24-hour),nitrogen dioxide,suspended particulate matter-PMio and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. In 1990,CARB identified vinyl chloride as a toxic air contaminant,but determined that there was not sufficient available scientific evidence to support the identification of a threshold exposure level. This action allows the implementation of health-protective control measures at levels below the 0.010 parts per million ambient concentration specified in the 1978 standard. 2. National standards(other than ozone,particulate matter and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The EPA also may designate an area as attainment/unc/assi6ab/e,if.(I)it has monitored air quality data that show that the area has not violated the ozone standard over a three-year period; or(2)there is not enough information to determine the air quality in the area. For PM 10,the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM25,the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations,averaged over three years,are equal to or less than the standard. 3. Concentration is expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar);ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume,or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. National Primary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary,with an adequate margin of safety,to protect the public health. 5. The Federal I-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15,2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact(EAC)areas. 6. The EPA revoked the annual PM,C standard in 2006(effective December 16,2006). 7. To attain this standard,the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum I-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm(effective anua 22,2010.Note that EPA standards are in units of b and California standards are in units of m. Source: Califomia Air Resources Board and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, une 4.2013. 2005 Ozone Strategy. The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which was adopted on January 4, 2006, and describes how the Basin will fulfill Califomia Clean Air Act planning requirements for the State I-hour ozone standard and transport mitigation requirements through the proposed control strategy. The 2005 Ozone Strategy explains P K,mley-Horn ► and ASS .teslnc Page 3-21 Heritage Park Draft FIR Air Quality how the BAAQMD plans to achieve these goals with regard to ozone, and also discusses related air quality issues of interest, including the public involvement process, climate change, fine particulate matter, the BAAQMD's Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program, local benefits of ozone control measures, the environmental review process, national ozone standards, and photochemical modeling. 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. In March 2010, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), published the draft 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which supersedes the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to achieve the following: Implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a single, integrated plan; Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 time frame. The control strategy includes stationary-source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the MTC, local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan also represents the Bay Area's most recent triennial assessment of the region's strategy to attain the State one-hour ozone standard. Thresholds Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is a commenting responsible agency on air quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. The BAAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would: (1) support the primary goals of the latest Air Quality Plan; (2) include applicable control measures from the Air Quality Plan; and (3) not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Air Quality Plan control measures. The BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. In addition to providing new thresholds for GHG emissions, the 201 1 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide updated significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and supersede the BAAQMD's previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999). Ki J.y Hw Page 3-22 ►� ..dAssociates1- Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless exercise its own discretion to rely on the thresholds within the Options andlustification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 201 1 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court decision, holding that BAAQMD's promulgation of the thresholds was not a project subject to CEQA review. First, the court reasoned, the State CEQA Guidelines establish a procedure for adopting significance thresholds, and CEQA review of the thresholds themselves is not part of that procedure. Moreover, in adopting the thresholds, BAAQMD had undertaken a public review process and considered substantial evidence, so that requiring CEQA analysis would be duplicative. The court also found insufficient evidence to show that the thresholds would qualify as a "project'' subject to CEQA by causing a physical change to the environment. Finally, the court concluded that BAAQMD's thresholds were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. If the project is in excess of the established project level thresholds, as illustrated in Table 3.2-3: BAAQMD Project Level Thresholds, a significant air quality impact may occur and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts. Table 3.2-3: BAAQMD Project Level Thresholds Pollutant/Precursor Construction Operations ROG 54 54 NOX 54 54 PM o 82 82 PM25 54 54 Notes: tpy=tons per year, Pl=fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; l day=pounds per day; PM,o=respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less; NOx=oxides of nitrogen; ROG=reactive organic gases. I. For Plan level impacts, BAAQMD includes Control Measures to address construction emissions. Significance is determined based on Project's compliance with Control Measures. If Plans comply with the measures,the impact is less than significant. Source: BAAQMD, Options and/u5ti6cation Re oil,October 2009 and BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,May 201 1. The Thresholds of Significance for local community risk and hazard impacts are identified below, which apply to both the siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2,5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. If emissions of TACs or fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) exceed any of the Thresholds of Significance listed below, the proposed project would result in a significant impact. P�Z„K,mley-Horn ►� and Aesooiatez.Inc Page 3-23 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality • Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or, • An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution; • An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) annual average PM2.5 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution. State Air Toxics Program Toxic air contaminants are another group of pollutants of concern in California. There are hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle engine exhaust. Public exposure to toxic air contaminants can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset spill conditions. Health effects of toxic air contaminants include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death. California regulates toxic air contaminants through its air toxics program, mandated in Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) of the Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety Code Section 39660 et seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics "Hot Spots'' Information and Assessment) (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et sec.). CARB, working in conjunction with the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, identifies toxic air contaminants. Air toxic control measures may then be adopted to reduce ambient concentrations of the identified toxic air contaminant to below a specific threshold, based on its effects on health, or to the lowest concentration achievable through use of best available control technology (BAC4T) for toxics. The program is administered by CARB. Air quality control agencies, including the BAAQMD, must incorporate air toxic control measures into their regulatory programs or adopt equally stringent control measures as rules within six months of adoption by CARB. Attainment Status The Basin is considered in attainment or unclassified for most of the criteria pollutants for State and Federal considerations, except for 03, PMio, and PM2.5. Under Federal regulations the Basin is designated an unclassified/attainment area for PM 10 standards (see Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status). City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to air quality within the project area. 7.4: Implementing Policy A. Request the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin. ,,m,ey-Ho,n Page 3-24 ►� Md nc Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQ-1 Guidelines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. ��I�Kimley-Horn 62 ,and As—al-Inc Page 3-25 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status r Pollutant State Federal Carbon Monoxide CO —8 hour Attainment Attainment Carbon Monoxide CO —I hour Attainment Attainment Ozone 03 —8 hour Non-attainment Non-Attainment Ozone 03 — I hour Non-attainment --2 Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 — I hour Attainment Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide—Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Attainment Sulfur Dioxide S02 —24 hour Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) — I hour Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) —Annual Arithmetic _ Attainment Mean Particulate Matter(PM 10) —Annual Arithmetic Non-Attainment -- Mean Particulate Matter PMIO —24 hour Non-Attainment Unclassified Particulate Matter(PM2,5) —Annual Arithmetic Non-attainment Attainment Mean Particulate Matter PM2.5 —24 hour -- Non-attainment Sulfates—24 hour Attainment -- Lead—Calendar Quarter Attainment Lead—30 Day Average -- Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide— I hour Unclassified Vinyl Chloride chloroethene —24 hour -- -- Visibility Reducing Particulates' Unclassified -- Notes: N/A—Not Applicable I. In order for an area to meet a particular standard,all time tests of the applicable standard must be met. Separate designations are not made for each time component of the standard. For instance,an area might meet the annual cntena of the State PM,o standard but not the 24-hour requirement. In that case, the area fails to meet the standard and would be designated nonattainment for the State PM 10 standard. Thus, a single designation is made for each State and Federal standard based on whether or not the area meets all the aspects of the standard. Designations for State standards are made by CARB while designations for Federal standards are made by EPA. 2. The national I-hour ozone standard was revoked by the EPA on June 15,2005. 3. The EPA lowered the 24-hour Pl standard from 65 g/m3 to 35 g/m' in 2006. EPA issued attainment status designations for the 35 g/m3 PM25 standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90-days after publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. President Obama has ordered a freeze on all pending Federal rules;therefore,the effective date of the designation is unknown at this time. Source:BAAQMD,Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status,2012. (http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pin/air—quality/ambient air ualit .htm Impacts and Mitigation Measures Short-Term Construction Emissions Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project may result in future short-terra air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including grading, operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures on the project site. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Construction of the proposed project would commence with demolition of the existing eight commercial/office buildings and associated improvements in August 2014. Following demolition, building construction would span over a period of approximately two years. Construction activities would include grading, paving, site preparation, and architectural P�Z/,Ki ;ey Horn Page 3-26 1111 r,d4sate 1' Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality coating. The project also includes the import of 15,000 cubic yards of soil for the grading phase of the proposed project. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. As shown in Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions, short-term construction air emissions would increase criteria pollutant air emissions in the project vicinity. In particular, NO. emissions in 2014 and 2015 would exceed BAAQMD's 54 lbs./day threshold. All other emissions would be under the thresholds through year 2016 construction activities. P1 K,m V H° Page 3 27 ��„and Assocow,Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions Source Estimated Average Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOx3 PMI0 PM2.5 2014 Total Unmitigated Emissions 5.79 59.20 21.56 12.89 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No Total Mitigated Emissions' 2.16 32.92 8.90 5.26 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No 2015 Total Unmitigated Emissions 5.13 56.0 10.34 6.09 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No Total Mitigated Emissions' 2.02 30.36 4.88 2.74 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82a 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No 2016 Total Unmitigated Emissions 29.21 32.0 3.52 2.40 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Total Mitigated Emissions, 26.16 16.65 2.02 1.27 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx= nitrogen oxides; PMio = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM25 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns;lbs./da =pounds per day. Notes: I. Emissions estimates calculated using CaIEEMod. 2. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in Ca1EEMod and as typically required by the BAAQMD (Basic Control Measures and Regulation 6:Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions). Fugitive dust mitigation includes the following:replace ground cover on disturbed areas quickly,water exposed surfaces twice daily,and proper loading/unloading of mobile and other construction equipment. 3. Enhanced mitigation involves compliance with an additional control measure requiring the use of CARB Certified low-NOx emissions equipment. Refer to Appendix B,Air QualitZ and Greenhouse Gas Data,for detailed model in ut/out ut data. Fugitive Dust Emissions Fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM2,5) from grading and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease following completion of the proposed project improvements. Most of this material is composed of inert silicates, which are less harmful to health than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOx and SOx combining with ammonia. The greatest amount of fugitive dust generated by the proposed project is expected to occur during site grading and excavation activities. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious b� d -Horn.Page 3-28 j Z .„ Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality health problem. Of particular concern is the amount of PM io generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. CalEEMod calculates PM io and PM23 fugitive dust as part of the site earthwork activity emissions; refer to Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions. Maximum particulate matter emissions would occur during the initial stages of construction, when grading activities would occur. There are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PMio and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. The BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds; refer to Mitigation Measure 3.2-I a. ROG Emissions In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are 03 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the BAAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving have been quantified using CalEEMod. In addition, based upon the size of the buildings, architectural coatings were also quantified in CaIEEMod. The highest concentration of ROG emissions would be generated during the application of architectural coatings towards the end of the building construction phase. As required by law, all architectural coatings for the proposed project structures would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coating, Regulation 8, Rule 3 provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint. As indicated in Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions, project construction would not result in an exceedance of ROG emissions during any construction phase or year. Therefore, the project would be in compliance with BAAQMD construction thresholds for ROG emissions. Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the CalEEMod program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include: level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces/types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported onsite or offsite. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, soil import, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials and workers to and from the site. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOx, PMio, and PM2,5. As shown in Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions, unmitigated NOx thresholds would be exceeded during the 2014 and 2015 construction years. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b would be required to reduce NOx emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b would reduce NOx emissions to a less than significant level in the 2014 and 2015 construction years. P� „Z Kimley-HOm \� and A-ates,Inc Pace 3-29 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Structural Asbestos Asbestos is a strong, incombustible, and corrosion resistant material, which was used in many commercial products prior to the 1940s and up until the early 1970s. If inhaled, asbestos fibers can result in serious health problems. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) are building materials containing more than one percent asbestos (some state and regional regulators impose a one-tenth of one percent threshold). The on-site 1 10,000 square foot office complex requires demolition as part of the proposed project; therefore, the potential for ACMs to be found on-site is considered likely. The BAAQMD regulates the demolition of buildings and structures containing asbestos. On-site demolition activities would be conducted in accordance with BAAQMD Regulation 1 1, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing). Rule 2 provides measures to control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere and includes wetting methods, removal in units, removal by chute or container, containment requirements, and disposal requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with compliance with BAAQMD regulations. Refer to Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for an additional discussion of asbestos. Total Daily Construction Emissions Due to the extent of the construction activities for the proposed project (demolition, grading, soil import, hauling, etc.), construction NOx emissions would exceed BAAQMD short-term construction emission thresholds in 2014 and 2015. As such, the proposed project would have the potential to also violate Federal and State ambient air quality standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a and 3.2-1 b would reduce 2014 and 2015 construction NOx emissions to levels below BAAQMD thresholds by requiring the BAAQMD's BMPs, and by utilizing Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to reduce emissions from diesel trucks, generators and off-road equipment (e.g., cranes, dozers, graders, pavers, etc.). As the proposed project would generate construction emissions below BAAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a and 3.2-1 b, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant impact with regards to short-term construction emissions. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.2-1 a Implement Short-term Construction Best Management Practices Prior to issuance of any Grading or Demolition Permit, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and contract specifications stipulate that the proposed project adhere to the most recent BAAQMD CEQA guidelines regarding short-term construction best management practices. These may include the following: Water all active construction areas to maintain 12 percent soil moisture. All grading shall be suspended when winds exceed 20 miles per hour. L All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. P�ZF J Kim ey-Horn Page 3-30 16- ,eod Ae o Ve Jnc Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality • Pave, apply water two times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Site access points from public roadways shall be paved or treated to prevent track-out. • Replace vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. It Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM 3.2-1 b Implement NOx Reduction Measure,-.- The following measures shall be implemented during construction to reduce NOx related emissions. They shall be included in the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and contract specifications and shall include the following: All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx. P�ZF,K-ley b- d"�s°"-1- Page 3-31 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality • All contractors shall use equipment that meets the California Air Resources Board's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. • The idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be minimized to two minutes. IL The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources Board fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, altemative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. IL Utilize existing power sources (i.e., electrical power) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. Long-Term Operational Emissions — Regional Emissions Impact 3.2-2: Implementation of the proposed project could result in regional air emissions from operational sources in exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in new long-term operational emissions generated by new area, energy, and mobile source air emissions. Operational emissions from area, energy and mobile sources are depicted in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions. Area Source Emissions Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for natural gas associated with the development of the proposed project. The primary use of natural gas would be from woodstoves (hearths), consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions, unmitigated area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for NOx, PMio, or PM23, but would exceed thresholds for ROG. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, which requires natural gas hearths for the proposed residential units, would reduce operational ROG emissions to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. n Page 3-32 m y-No m d Associates.Inc. Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Energy Source Emissions Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non- hearth) usage including space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. According to the preliminary traffic analysis for the proposed project, the project would result in a net reduction of 600 vehicle trips compared to existing conditions. As such, mobile emissions from motor vehicles would also be expected to be reduced with implementation of the proposed project. As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long- Term Operational Emissions, unmitigated mobile source emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project would not exceed established BAAQMD thresholds for PM2.5, ROG, NOx, and/or PMio. _ZFJ K,m"H— Page 3-33 end As!t 1� Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions Source Estimated Average Emissions(pounds/day) ROG NOx PM I O PM2.5 Existing Area 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.06 0.51 0.04 0.04 Mobile 8.07 23.11 7.63 2.33 Total Existing 10.8 23.62 21.04 3.65 Unmitigated Emissions Area 100.85 1.33 16.43 16.43 Energy 0.06 0.55 0.04 0.04 Mobile 3.41 9.36 4.40 1.26 Total Proposed-Unmitigated 104.32 22.71 20.87 17.73 Mitigated Emissions Areal 4.22 0.05 0.11 0.1 I Energy 0.06 0.48 0.04 0.04 Mobile 3.26 8.63 3.70 1.05 Total Proposed-Mitigated 7.54 9.16 3.85 I.20 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54 Net Emissions 4.87 9.16 3.85 1.20 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 823 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Notes: ROG=reactive or ganic gases;NOx=nitrogen oxides;PM,o=particulate matter less than 10 microns;PM25=particulate matter less than 2.5 microns;lbs./day=pounds per day. I. Emissions estimates calculated using CaIEEMod. 2. Area source mitigation includes the use of low VOC paints and only natural gas hearths (BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3),which are included in Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 Refer to A endix B,Air QualitX and Greenhouse Gas Data,for detailed model input/output data. Total Emissions As shown in Table 3.2-6: Proposed Project Long-Term Operational Emissions, the total unmitigated operational emissions associated with implementation of proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for NOx, PM 10, and/or PM2,5, ROG emissions from area sources (i.e., hearths) would be in exceedance under this scenario. However, ROG emissions from area sources would be reduced to levels within BAAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 (Wood-Buming Devices), which restricts wood burning and places limits on excessive smoke. As such, operational emissions for the proposed project would not exceed thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM 10, and/or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, overall operational emissions would be reduced from potentially significant to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2. Page 3-34 [Z►,Ki 11,Han and Associates.In Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measure: MM 3.2-2 Implement only natural gas hearths in residential units: The proposed project shall include natural gas hearths only in the proposed on-site residential units. These shall be incorporated into the project design to reduce operational ROG air emissions to ensure consistency with BAAQMD emission thresholds. The project applicant shall demonstrate the incorporation of natural gas hearths prior to approval of final design documents. Long-Term Operational Emissions - Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Impact 3.2-3: Carbon monoxide concentrations are low in the project vicinity and the proposed project would result in carbon monoxide concentrations that would be well below the State and Federal standards. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations. The Basin is designated as attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Basin with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991. As a result, the BAAQMD screening criteria notes that CO impacts may be determined to be less than significant if a project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan (CMP) and would not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour for locations in heavily urban areas, where "urban canyons'' formed by buildings tend to reduce air circulation. The proposed project would result in a net reduction in vehicle trips compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the number of vehicles at intersections. As such, effects related to CO concentrations would be less than significant. Long-Term Operational Emissions —Toxics Air Contaminants Impact 3.2-4: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial long-term operational pollutant concentrations, particularly from vehicles and trucks on adjacent roadways. These impacts are considered potentially significant. Impacts to Off-Site Receptors The proposed residential and office uses would not generate toxic air contaminants (TAC) that would pose a possible risk to off-site uses. Any possible off-site TAC impacts would result solely from construction. Combustion emissions from construction equipment would be generated during project construction and could expose sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other TACs. DPM exhaust emissions for project construction from off-road heavy equipment were calculated using CaIEEMod. These activities are expected to occur over a three year period. P�„K-ley-Morn h-2 2ndA—mt- Page 3-35 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality The BAAQMD has developed screening tables, the most recent of which are dated 201 1, for air toxics evaluation during construction to determine if a proposed project is sufficiently limited and setbacks are adequate to ensure that impacts to sensitive receptors from exposure to carcinogenic DPM emissions during project construction are less than the levels shown in BAAQMD screening tables (BAAQMD 2013). There are existing homes (approximately 210 feet [64 meters] to the north and 100 feet to the southwest) closer than the setback distance that would allow the local risks and hazards to be screened out. A quantitative screening-level impact analysis is therefore required. The BAAQMD's Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Rlsks and Hazards (BAAQMD 201 1) was used to complete this screening-level health risk assessment. The BAAQMD recommends a two-tiered approach for screening-level health risk assessments: a screening-level dispersion model is initially applied to project emissions using generally over-predictive assumptions and if the predicted health risk is not within acceptable levels, then a more sophisticated dispersion modeling is necessary. A screening-level individual cancer analysis was conducted to determine the maximum PM2.5 concentration from diesel exhaust. This concentration was combined with the DPM exposure unit risk factor to calculate the inhalation cancer risk from project-related construction activities at the closest sensitive receptor. The EPA AERSCREEN air dispersion model was used to evaluate concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 from diesel exhaust. The AERSCREEN model was developed to provide an easy to use method of obtaining pollutant concentration estimates and is a single source Gaussian plume model, which provides a maximum one-hour ground-level concentration. The model output for this analysis is included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 3.2-5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions, the worst construction year would be in Year 3 and that 1.27 tons of PM2.5 (mitigated emissions, refer to Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 a) would result from on-site construction activities. With this emissions rate input into AERSCREEN, the predicted maximum one-hour off-site DPM concentration is 0.4472 g/m3. The hourly to annual scaling factor is 0.1. AERSCREEN output thus indicates that project construction would produce a maximum annual DPM concentration of 0.045 g/m3. This is less than the individual project PM2.5 significance threshold of 0.3 g/m3. Annual PM23 concentrations during the other years of construction would be less than the peak Year 3 maximum of 0.12 tons of PM2,5 exhaust on-site. Therefore, the annual average PM23 concentrations in any other year would also be less than the 0.3 g/m3 significance threshold. The excess individual cancer risk factor for DPM exposure is approximately 300 in a million per I gg/m3 of lifetime exposure. More recent research has determined that young children are substantially more sensitive to DPM exposure risk. If exposure occurs in the first several years of life, an age sensitivity factor (ASF) of 10 should be applied. For toddlers through mid-teens, the ASF is 3. The DPM exposure risk from construction exhaust thus depends upon the age of the receptor population. As a worst-case P�� 1imi Horn � Page 3-36 dA—.1-11 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality assumption it was assumed that the Year 3 DPM emissions maximum persists at that level for up to 3 years of construction. However, as indicated in Table 3.2-7: Construction Related Health Risk, even with the application of ASFs, the exposure risk to off-site residences is below BAAQMD threshold. It should be noted that the results depicted in Table 3.2-7: Construction Related Health Risk conservatively assume that the worst case emissions would occur during each of the construction years. Table 3.2-7: Construction Related Health Risk Age Excess Cancer Riskl <0 to 2 Years2 5.79 in a million 3 to 15 Years 1.74 in a million >15 Years 0.58 in a million BAq QMD Si nificance Threshold >l0 in a million Notes: I. DPM (p g/m3)*300 x 10-6 x ASF weighted months/840 months (70 years) 2. <0 years indicates in utero,third trimester As indicated above, the maximum individual cancer risk would be below the 10 in a million significance threshold for all age-groups, resulting in a less than significant impact. The risks for the existing residential uses located near the project boundary, would also be less than significant. The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non-cancer risk stated in terms of a "hazard index'' (HI). An acute or chronic HI of 1.0 is considered individually significant. HI is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. For DPM, there is no published acute non-cancer risk reference level. The chronic reference level for DPM is reported by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to be 5.0 µg/m3. The chronic HI for construction activities would be 0.09, which would be a less than significant impact On-Site Risk and Health Hazards The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend that existing stationary and mobile emissions sources within 1,000 feet of the project vicinity also be considered in addition to the project's sources. The BAAQMD defines a receptor to be "a place where people live, play, or convalesce". These types of receptors would include residences, schools, school yards, parks, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. The proposed project would develop single family residences approximately 350 feet north of the 1-580 freeway. The BAAQMD and CARB recommend site-specific health risk assessments be performed when siting sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a freeway. Long-term exposure to toxic air contaminants of potential concern within the project site includes DPM which is emitted mostly from diesel powered cars and trucks on the 1-580 freeway. Following the BAAQMD risk and hazard screening analysis process, the proposed project would fail the initial and advanced screening for PM25 and lifetime excess cancer risk. OP�Z„KITIev-H- ►� and A55oclates.Inc Page 3-37 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality To confirm the results of the screening analysis, a refined dispersion modeling analysis was conducted utilizing local meteorology, emission rates, and highway estimates. Refined dispersion modeling was performed using the EPA AERMOD model, which is a dispersion model that predicts air pollutant concentrations from various sources. The dispersion modeling utilized freeway traffic data from Caltrans (Caltrans 2012), as well as emissions rates and vehicle fleet data from the EMFAC model. Assumptions and calculations used in determining the health risk with respect to roadway usage in the project area is included in Appendix B. Based on the results of the analysis described above, receptors were modeled within the project site where the residences would be located. The modeling identified the maximum potential cancer risks as 16.28 cases per million at the project site. It should be noted that this represents the worst case within the project site. The range of cancer risk within the project site based on distance from 1-580 is 4.20 to the 16.28 cases per million. Based on the modeling results, potential cancer risks could exceed the 10 in one million threshold for residences within 600 feet of the north edge of 1-580 freeway general purpose lanes. As a result, Mitigation Measure 3.2-4 would be required for all dwelling units within 600 feet of the 1-580 freeway. It should be noted that emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks are expected to decline due to the effect of new EPA engine and fuel standards. Additionally, the CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan set a goal to reduce diesel particulate matter by 85 percent (from a 2000 baseline) by 2020, which would reduce the emissions and risk levels identified above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 a and I b and Mitigation Measure 3.2-4, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a and I b (described above). MM 3.2-4 Provide Upgraded Ventilation Systems Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Community Development Director shall confirm that all building plans and contract specifications require residential dwelling units within 600 feet of the north edge of the 1- 580 general purpose lanes to be equipped with sealed heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. The sealed air system shall be designed so that all ambient air introduced into the interior living space would be filtered to remove diesel particulate matter (DPM) and other particulate matter at minimum of up to 75 percent of particulates of 0.3 micron or larger in size from the ambient air that is introduced to the system, and 90 percent of particulates of I micron or larger. This mitigation measure also requires a commitment by the applicant to ensure regular maintenance and replacement of filters as needed. This requirement will be included as part of the Page 3-3 i3 P1 Z"Ki ;ey-Han d Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality conditions of approval and could be done as part of the responsibility of the Home Owner's Association. Project design specifications shall stipulate that the heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system intakes shall be placed as far away from 1-580 as feasible. The design shall also require positive pressure with the HVAC system in all occupied spaces to prevent the incursion of outside air that bypasses the HVAC filters. Exposure to Odorous Emissions Impact 3.2-5: The proposed project would not generate excessive amounts of odors in the project area, and would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements that will ensure any impact is less than significant. Construction Odors Construction activities under the proposed project could generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of architectural coatings. However, these odors are temporary in nature. Emissions would occur during daytime hours and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity. As such, these odors would be short-term and limited to people living and working near the source and therefore would be considered a less than significant impact. Operational Odors Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. According to the BAAQMD CEQI Guidelines, common sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries, and chemical plants. However, these facility types are not present within the project area. Potential operational airborne odors within the project vicinity could be created by cooking activities associated with the residential uses. These odors would be similar to existing residential uses in the area and would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new buildings. The other potential source of odors would be new waste receptacles within the project site. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have developed. Additionally, City regulations require protection from excessive odors (City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations Regulations, and Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Dlstricts). Further, BAAQMD Regulation No. 7, Odorous Substances, establishes general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Therefore, with adherence to the Municipal Code regulations and BAAQMD Regulation No. 7, implementation of the proposed project would not create operational-related /Z„K-1.y H- b- andAssocaces.hc Page 3-39 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and would result in a less than significant impact. Long-Term Operational Emissions— Clean Air Plan Consistency Impact 3.2-6: Construction-related and operational criteria pollutant emissions may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Basin is the Bay Area 2010 Clean AirP/an (CAP). The CAP outlines how the San Francisco Bay Area will attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions. On November 20, 2012, the Dublin City Council adopted a resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the land use designation for a portion of the property (5.85 acres) from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential. Although the proposed project also includes 14,000 square feet of office space on-site, this would not be considered a regionally significant project that would significantly affect regional vehicle miles traveled pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15206). Furthermore, the proposed project would result in a net reduction in vehicle trips and the number of new housing units would not exceed existing planned housing and population estimates as described in the City of Dublin General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to exceed the level of population or housing foreseen in regional planning efforts. As such, the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which is the basis of the CAP projections. As described above, the net increase in regional operational ROG emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD's emissions thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 (Wood-Buming Devices). These thresholds are established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants. Because the proposed project would not exceed these thresholds, the proposed project would not be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants, and would not contribute to any non-attainment areas in the Basin. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2, the project would be in compliance with state ozone standards, and the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are discussed in Section 3.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which concludes that the proposed project would reduce its ''business as usual" GHG emissions by 15.2 percent. The proposed project would also result in 990.37 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year (MTCO2eq/year), which is below the BAAQMD's 1,100 /Z K-1 -Hwn d 4 -- Page 3-40 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality MTCO2eq/year GHG threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would support the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan goal and performance objective to reduce GHG emissions. Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 (described above). /� K— -Horn ►� ar,dAee .!a ,hc Page 3-41 Heritage Park Draft EIR Air Quality Page 3 42 i CF,a soci ii l H- nd Asates.Inc Heritage Park Draft FIR Cultural Resources 3.3 Cultural Resources This section analyzes the potential impacts to archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources, which may be present within the project site, Background information and analysis within this section is based on existing background reports including the Dublin V/lage Historic Area Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Dublin General Plan. Environmental Setting Historic Resources Regional Setting Prior to the arrival of the European settlers, the City of Dublin was inhabited by the Ohlone and Bay Miwok Indians. The first recorded arrival of Europeans in the Amador Valley took place in April of 1772. Lieutenant Pedro Fages, Fray Juan Crespo and a dozen Spanish soldiers marched through the Valley while traveling from Drake's Bay to the Presidio of Monterey. Lieutenant Fages was impressed with the beauty of the Valley and the expedition likely stopped to obtain water from what is known as Alamilla Springs. For over 60 years, Alamilla Springs remained in its natural state until the Mexican Government passed the Secularization Act of 1833. In August of 1835, Governor Jose Figueroa granted over 16,000 acres of land to Jose Amador, a previous civilian administrator, or Mayordomo of Mission San Jose. Shortly thereafter, Amador built a two- story, Monterey-style adobe near Alamilla Springs, which became the first settlement of present-day Dublin and the principal stopping point for travelers in search of water, food, and lodging. The Mexican Rancho era of California History ended when American citizens in California revolted against the Mexican government. On June 6, 1846, California became an independent republic. The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 officially ended the Mexican American War and ceded the entire northwestern part of Mexico, including present day Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah to the United States. After the Mexican American War, Amador was forced to sell parts of his property and two Irish-immigrants named Michael Murray and Jeremiah Fallon purchased 245 acres each from Amador in 1852. They built wooden homes near Amador's Adobe and Alamilla Springs. In 1853, James and Will Dougherty arrived in the Valley and purchased 10,000 acres of Rancho San Ramon. Dougherty and his family initially made their home in the old Amador Adobe. By the late 1850s, the tiny settlement know as Amador's or Dougherty's Station had grown to include several dwellings and a few commercial, religious, and civic buildings. A formal cemetery was also established in 1859. In 1860, the Amador Hotel was built, which became a stopping point for the stagecoaches that ran between Oakland and Stockton, and Martinez and San Jose. '_"arm ov Morn b� dA-atesInc Page 3-43 Heritage Park Draft FIR Cultural Resources By 1878, the settlement had grown to include a school, a church, a cemetery, a Sunday School, two hotels, a general store, a harness shop, a shoe shop, and a blacksmith shop. The settlement was named after Ireland's Capital City, Dublin due to the presence of a large number of Irish American immigrants in the area. Despite its early growth, Dublin's chances of becoming a major commercial center were halted when the Central Pacific Railroad was built over several miles from the settlement. The railroad hurt the stagecoach business and inhibited Dublin's potential to grow into a major commercial and population center. Dublin's fate changed in the early 1900s due to the increased automobile ownership and improvements in transportation infrastructure. CA-21, a north-south highway from Benicia to San Jose (now San Ramon Road) and the east-west Lincoln Highway or Route 50 (now Dublin Boulevard) both made Dublin an important crossroads for automobile travelers. By 1934, Dublin had grown to include a school, a church, two hotels, a grocery store, a blacksmith shop, fire gas stations, and a library. Both sides of Lincoln Highway were lined with businesses. Between the mid 1930's to the end of the World War II, Dublin Village did not change substantially. After World War II, suburban growth began to spread across the Valley. Interstate 680 and Interstate 580 were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. By the mid- 1970s, most of the older buildings that made up Dublin Village had been destroyed by neglect, fire, or were demolished for residential development, leaving only a handful of historic buildings. Local preservation efforts in the 1970s saved some of these resources from demolition, Resources that were lost were replaced with suburban shopping centers, office buildings, and apartment complexes. Dublin Village Historic Area The original settlement of the Dublin Village now consists of several properties that are developed with office, commercial, residential, and civic land uses. Several of the historic structures remain and border the project site to the west across Donlon Way at the Heritage Park and Museums, which is a ten acre park that includes the St. Raymond's Catholic Church, the Old Murray Schoolhouse, Pioneer Cemetery, Green's store, and two bungalow style homes. The Old Murray Schoolhouse serves as a permanent exhibit on the history of the City and the Kolb House serves as a museum. Archaeological Resources In 2003, the project site and vicinity was surveyed by William Self Associates, Inc. as part of the Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan to identify and map archaeological resources. Pursuant to a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) there were eight archaeological sites identified within a quarter mile radius of the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan area. In addition to the records search through the NWIC, William Self Associates also conducted a pedestrian survey of the Specific Plan area. The pedestrian survey resulted in the identification of previously unrecorded historic resources. The pedestrian survey was also successful in identifying high probability archaeological areas Kanley-Horn Page 3-44 � and As—ales.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources within the boundaries of the Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Man, which include those areas within 493 feet centered on Dublin Creek, as well as those in the general vicinity of St. Raymond's Church, Pioneer Cemetery, and the Dublin Square Shopping Center site (William Self Associates, Inc. 2003). Native American Coordination To aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (''cultural places'') through local land use planning, Senate Bill (SB) 18, effective September 2004, requires local government to notify and consult with California Native American tribes when the local government is considering adoption or amendment of a general or specific plan, which applies to the proposed project. The City of Dublin sent letters to the tribal contacts as formal invitations for consultation under SB 18 for a 90 day review period, which concluded on June 1, 2013. Regulatory Setting Federal Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 Federal regulations for cultural resources are governed primarily by Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council's implementing regulations, ''Protection of Historic Properties," are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for determining National Register of Historic Places eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part 60. Amendments to the Act (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things, strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most projects by private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance. Federal regulations only come into play in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or if it uses federal money. National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places is ''an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment." However, the Federal regulations explicitly provide that a listing of private property on the National Register of Historic Places ''does not prohibit under federal law or regulation any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property." ''Historic properties,'' as defined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, include any "prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the p�MrJ K—ey-H— Page 3-45 b� and Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources Interior'' (36 CFR 800.16(1)). The eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places is determined by applying the following criteria and evaluating integrity, developed by the National Park Service in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) That embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4). State State historic preservation regulations affecting the Project include the statutes and guidelines contained in CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 21084.1 and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines). CEQA requires lead agencies to carefully consider the potential effects of a project on historical resources. An "historical resource'' includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript, which is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code Section 5020.1). Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that a historical resource for CEQA purposes can be listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, and can include unlisted resources subject to determination by a local agency. California Register of Historical Resources In 1992, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2881 into law, establishing the California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register of Historical Resources is an authoritative guide in California used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The criteria for eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources are based upon National Register of Historic Places criteria. Certain resources are determined by the statute to be included on the California Register of Historical Resources, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places, State Landmarks, and State Points of Interest. Page 3-46 ��►,K " g and Associates 1- Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has broad authority under Federal and State law for the implementation of historic preservation programs in the State of California. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) makes determinations of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. The appropriate standard for evaluating "substantial adverse effect" is defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (q) and 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), Substantial adverse change means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. Such impairment of significance would be an adverse impact on the environment. Cultural resources consist of buildings, structures, objects, or archeological sites. Each of these entities may have historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Under State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would result if the significance of a cultural resource would be substantially adversely changed by proposed project activities. Activities that could potentially result in a significant impact consist of demolition, replacement, substantial alteration, and relocation of the resource. The significance of a resource is required to be determined prior to analysis of the level of significance of project activities. The steps required to be implemented to determine significance in order to comply with State CEQA Guidelines are: • Identify cultural resources; • Evaluate the significance of the cultural resources; ; • Evaluate the effects of a project on all cultural resources based on established thresholds of significance; and It Develop and implement measures to mitigate the substantial adverse effects of the project on significant cultural resources. Sections 6253, 6254, and 6254.10 of the California Government Code authorize state agencies to exclude archaeological site information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act. In addition, the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Government Code Section 6250 et. seq.) and California's open meeting laws (The Brown Act, Government Code Section 54950 et. seq.) protect the confidentiality of Native American cultural place information. The CPRA (as amended, 2005) contains two exemptions that aid in the protection of records relating to Native American cultural places by permitting any state or local agency to deny a CPRA request and withhold from public disclosure: "Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Section 5097.9 and Section 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency" (GC Section 6254(r)); and �Z11 K-m.Y-Horn �� As—aces.Inc Page 3-47 Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources "Records that relate to archaeological site information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency" (GC Section 6254.10). Likewise, the Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation prohibit public dissemination of records search and site location information. In compliance with these requirements, and those of the Code of Ethics of the Society for California Archaeology and the Register of Professional Archaeologists, the locations of cultural resources are considered restricted information with highly restricted distribution and are not publicly accessible. Any project area located on non-Federal land in California is also required to comply with State laws pertaining to the inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains. California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 5097.5 Paleontological resources include fossil remains, their respective fossil sites, and the fossil- bearing strata and associated specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data. In California, paleontological resources are addressed by State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, section V.c, which addresses impacts on fossil sites; California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 5097.5. Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan are applicable to cultural and historic resources: 76: /mp/ementing Po/icyA. Preserve Dublin's historic structures. Seven sites in or near the Dublin Planning Area are listed in the California Archaeological Inventory, Northwest Information Center, at Sonoma State University including the church and school on the grounds of the heritage park. As many as a dozen potentially significant historic and prehistoric sites have been identified in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. Page 3-48 ��n-dA "� � .y H. t Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources 76: Implementing Policy B. Follow State regulations -- Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code. Relevant Project Characteristics Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan The Dublin t//lage Historic Area Specific Plan includes preservation and rehabilitation techniques that apply to all structures and resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the California Register of Historic Resources. Resources located in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan that are eligible include the St. Raymond's Church, Old Murray Schoolhouse, Pioneer Cemetery, Green Store, and Alamilla Springs. The Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan also provides development standards and design guidelines for future residential and commercial, and mixed-use development within the Specific Plan area, which are summarized in Section 3.1 Aesthetics. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance According to the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if one or more of the following were to occur. • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; IL Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; and/or Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Methodology Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on a review of historical documents that describe the setting of the project site and surrounding area, as well as a review of the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Historical Resources Impact 3.3-2: The project site is currently developed with a complex of eight two- story wood-clad commercial/office buildings, which are not considered historic resources and would be demolished with implementation of the proposed project. C F1 ndA at Page 3-49 Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources The project site is located within the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan adjacent to the Heritage Park and Museums, which contains several eligible historic structures. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with the design guidelines in the Dublin Vi//age Historic Area Specific Plan to be compatible with the character of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact. The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan. The proposed 54 single family residential homes would be comprised of Craftsman and American Farmhouse style. Architectural elements and details in the proposed project are consistent with these architectural styles providing variation in building form and to provide an appropriate scale with surrounding land uses (e.g. Heritage Park and Museum). Proposed architectural details include the use of front and upstairs patios and the use of different building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. The proposed two-story 14,000 square foot commercial/office building would be located in the northern portion of the project site along Donlon Way and would be comprised of 7,000 square feet per floor. The ground level of the building would have a wrap-around porch element, with low sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby entry at the center of the building would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof. An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second level of the commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. The bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition roof. With incorporation of these architectural details into the proposed project, future residential and commercial/office development would attempt to recapture the character of the Historic Dublin Village and contribute to the sense of place consistent with the historic feel of the Heritage Park and Museums site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to the historical resources located within the Heritage Park and Museums (e.g. St. Raymond's Church, Pioneer Cemetery, etc.) site west of the project site across Donlon Way. Archaeological Resources Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project has been previously disturbed with development of the Heritage Park commercial/office complex. However, based on the existence of the archaeological resources within and adjacent to the Dublin t///age Area Specific Plan, there is a high probability of identifying Native American archaeological resources and encountering historic-period archaeological resources Page 3 50 i Kimiev Horn =F, and Associates.Inc. Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources within the Specific Plan area and at the project site. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact. Although the project site has previously been disturbed, archaeological resources have been found within and adjacent to the Dublin Vllage Specific Plan area as documented in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Mitigated Negative Declaration. Areas within 493 feet centered on Dublin Creek, as well east of St. Raymond's Church, Pioneer Cemetery, and the Heritage Park site are considered having a high probability of identifying Native American archaeological and historical resources (William Self and Associates Inc. 2003). As the project site is located within this high archaeological probability area, this is considered a potentially significant impact. The following mitigation measure would ensure that the proposed project does not result in the destruction or disturbance of undiscovered archaeological, cultural or pre-historic resources and would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-2a Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present at the project site during ground disturbing activities (e.g. grading and excavation) during construction of the proposed project. If anything is discovered during the archaeological monitoring, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-21b. MM 3.3-21b Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource(s) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City staff of the encountered archeological deposit. If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an archaeological resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit shall be addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b). Measures may include, but are not limited to archaeological data recovery, etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the archaeologist, a professional-quality report shall be submitted to the City, the project applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. The project applicant shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c) through (f) of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code 21083.2. P1 K, .y m b� and"-ales,Inc Page 3-51 Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources Impact 3.3-3: No paleontological resources are known to exist within the project vicinity. However, the presence of unknown paleontological resources could be discovered during site preparation and grading activities, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. Fossil resources are not anticipated to occur within the project site based on the records search and survey conducted for the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, which included the project site. However, ground and site preparation activities during project construction have the potential to disturb or destroy unknown paleontological resources that have not previously been identified or recorded. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-3 Halt Work / Paleontological Evaluation / Site-Specific Mitigation. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: 1) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area; 2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area; 3) background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development. Disturb Human Remains Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries Impact 3.3-4: Due to the disturbed nature of the project site, there are no known human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries that are anticipated to be disturbed during short-term construction activities. However, human remains could be discovered during site preparation and grading activities, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. Page 3-52 �K,m.e�_Ftan � antl Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Cultural Resources The majority of the project site has been previously disturbed from development of the Heritage Park commercial/office complex. Based on the records search and pedestrian survey conducted by William Self Associates, there are no known human remains buried within the boundaries of the Dublin Visage Historic Area Specific Plan area. However, the project site is located within a high archaeologically sensitive area and has the potential to uncover human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery, which could be unearthed as a result of project excavation and grading. This is considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to the disruption of human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-4 Halt Work/Coroner's Evaluation/Native American Heritage Consultant/ Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation activities, all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroners Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a "Most Likely Descendent. (MILD)." The MILD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for burial. �„and Associates.Inc Page 3-53 Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils 3.4 Geology and Soils This section of the Draft FIR describes the existing geologic, seismic, and soil conditions present at the project site, and evaluates potential project impacts under these conditions associated with faults, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction, landslides, and unstable geologic units and/or soils. A Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation was prepared by Stevens Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. (SFB Engineering) in March 2012 and June 2013. These reports were peer reviewed by Cal Engineering and Geology (CE&G) in July 2013 on behalf of the City of Dublin. The Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation and peer review is included as Appendix C of this Draft FIR. Environmental Setting Geologic Structure The City of Dublin is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California, an area characterized by a series of northwestern trending ridges and valleys dominated by the San Andreas Fault System. To the west, the East Bay Hills have formed from a compressional interaction between the Calaveras fault to the east and the Hayward fault to the west. Topography The project site is situated at an elevation of approximately 375 feet above mean sea level. The hills directly to the west and southwest of the project site are comprised of Miocene sedimentary rocks primarily consisting of shales and sandstones, which have undergone intense folding and faulting and generally strike to the northwest. In the project vicinity, the Calaveras fault separates the Miocene rocks from the Plio-Pleistocene Livermore gravels. East of the project site, the Amador Valley and the Livermore Valley is a tectonically formed depression that has been overlain with late Tertiary and Quaternary alluvial deposits The project site is underlain by Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits that have been previously mapped as medium dense to dense, gravelly sand or sandy gravel that generally grades upward to sandy or silty clay. These deposits were primarily derived from the canyon creeks located west of the project site. Soils According to the Alameda County Soil Survey(NRCS 1996), the project site is comprised of Yolo loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. The Yolo loam series consists of well-drained, moderately deep to very deep, loamy soils on nearly level valley floors west of Livermore and on the gently sloping to strongly sloping fans in small valleys east of Hayward. These soils formed under grasses and scattered oaks in alluvium from shale and sandstone. Runoff on the Yolo loam soil is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. To determine the characteristics of the soils within the project site SFB Engineering conducted a field exploration on February 21 and 22, 2012, which consisted of drilling six P 22"Kimey-Horn k� ,andAesw,tee nc Page 3-55 Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 25 feet. In addition SFB Engineering performed two exploratory trenches between 120 and 140 feet long and about 10 feet deep for a fault rupture hazard investigation from February 13 to 16, 2013. The near surface materials encountered in the exploratory borings consisted of clayey fills that extended to an average depth of about two to three feet, except in one boring where the fill extended to a depth of approximately eight feet. Borings 1, 2, 5 and 6, which were sampled west of the Calaveras fault were comprised of soft to stiff silty clays that were inter-bedded with relatively thin layers of loose to medium dense sands or gravel. Borings 3 and 4, which were sampled east of the Calaveras fault, were comprised of stiff to very stiff silty clays (SFB Engineering 2013). Expansive Soils Expansive soils shrink or swell significantly with changes in moisture content. Clay content and porosity of the soil changes the volume. The most common cause of changes in the soil moisture content is seasonal fluctuations due to rainfall; however, improper surface drainage or underground water pipe leaks may cause shrinking or swelling of soil. The shrinking and swelling, which is caused by expansive clay often results in damage to overlying structures, including foundations, floor slabs, pavements, sidewalks, and other improvements that are sensitive to soil movements. Usually, damage from expansive soils can be minimized or eliminated by using site-specific engineering techniques. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the soils at the project site are considered moderately expansive and would be subject to volume changes with changes in moisture content (SFB Engineering 2013). Erosion Potential Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind, water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches, and has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms. Topsoil erosion is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Most natural erosion occurs at relatively slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases where the ground surface is steep and when land is cleared and/or left in a disturbed condition, such as during the preparation and excavation phases of construction activities. The project site is predominately level and is comprised of primarily impervious surfaces. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Yolo loam soil is characterized as having a slight to moderate erosion hazard with runoff characterized as slow to medium (NRCS 1996). Liquefaction, Landslide Risk, and Other Soil Hazards During earthquakes, ground shaking may cause a loss of strength in cohesionless saturated soils. This process is called liquefaction and occurs most commonly in loose sands associated with a high water table. F�=„Ki ey-Horn Page 3-56 N� .r,dAsso—tesmc Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils According to the Seismic Hazard Map of the Dublin Quadrangle, the project site is located in a liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the State of California. The geotechnical investigation evaluated groundwater levels in borings to assess impacts on liquefaction and ground surface damage potential. According to the geotechnical analysis, the project site contains isolated saturated thin sand and gravel lenses of less than five feet thick that have a moderate to high potential for liquefying when subjected to a design basis earthquake. The earthquake induced liquefaction could result in residual volumetric strains varying from 1.5 percent to three percent, aerial ground surface settlements of up to about an inch and differential settlements of up to half an inch across typical residential foundations (SFB Engineering 2013). Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of soil towards a free face (such as incised river channel or open body of water) during earthquakes. The geotechnical investigation evaluated the potential for lateral spreading and determined that the potential for lateral spreading is low (SFB Engineering 2013). Landsliding The project site is generally flat and there are no major slopes within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore the potential for landsides is considered low. Faults/Seismic Hazards A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which land on one side has moved relative to land on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as a fault that has "had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 1 1,000 years)." This definition does not mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement within Holocene times are necessarily inactive. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity is sometimes difficult to obtain and locally may not exist. A potentially active fault is a fault that shows evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (about the last 1.6 million years). The middle third of the project area is located within a currently designated Alquist Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras Fault as shown in Figure 3.4-1: Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Calaveras Fault. The Calaveras fault is depicted by a dashed line on the Earthquake Fault Zone map, which indicates that the California Geologic Survey considers this trace to be an inferred location. Earthquake intensities vary throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, depending on numerous factors including the magnitude of earthquake, the distance of the site from the fault and the type of materials underlying the site. The U.S. Geological Survey indicated that there is a 63 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 of greater earthquake striking the San Francisco Bay region between 2008 and 2037. Therefore the project site will likely be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause strong /Z„K-ley-Horn �� and A—cmresInc Page 3-57 Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils ground shaking. Several other active faults in the project vicinity include the Pleasanton fault located two miles to the northeast; the Hayward fault located 7.6 miles to the southwest; the Verona fault located 8.2 miles to the southeast; the Marsh Creek fault located 1 1.0 miles to the northeast; the Greenville fault located 1 1.5 miles to the east; the Las Positas fault located 12 miles to the southeast; Clayton fault located 12.3 miles to the northeast; Concord-Green Valley fault located 13.8 miles to the northwest; Crosley fault located 14.8 miles to the south; Carnegie fault located 18.8 miles to the southeast; the Monte Vista fault located 25.7 miles to the southwest; the San Andreas fault located 26.5 miles to the southwest; and the Serra fault located 27.4 miles to the west. Calaveras Fault The Calaveras fault is a zone that forms a major discontinuity in the Amador Valley region, separating the highly folded Upper Cretaceous Great Valley sequence to the west of the fault and Plio-Pleistocene Livermore gravels on the east side of the fault. The nor-them segment of the Calaveras fault in the project vicinity exhibits geomorphic features characteristic of Holocene dextral strike-slip movement such as deflected drainages, linear troughs, linear scarps, and closed depressions. Aerial photographs were reviewed by SFB Engineering to determine if geomorphic features could be attributed to the Calaveras fault within the project site. Fault created features were observed in the 1939 photos and many of the features still exist in the 1965 and 1971 photographs. Development of the existing commercial/office space at the project site destroyed most of the fault features in the photographs from 1980 when the existing office building was constructed. The most prominent geomorphic features that can be attributed to the Calaveras fault is a linear trough and lineament that extends across the project site in a nearly north-south direction. North of the project site, the trough and lineament connects with east facing scarps located on the east sides of low lying hills. The scarps appear to have been created by the Calaveras fault truncating the hillsides. South of the project site, the linear trough appears to become less apparent and coincides with the topographic slope breaks that face eastward. Further south, east facing scarps associated with truncated hillsides are evident in the aerial photography along Foothill Road, Numerous fault studies have been performed at the project site and in the project vicinity. Figure 3.4-2: Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory Trenching shows the location of the fault traces, as well as the locations of exploratory trenches performed historically at the project site and in the project vicinity. To provide additional detail regarding the location of the Calaveras fault across the project site, SFB Engineering excavated two exploratory trenches at the locations shown in Figure 3.4-2: Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory Trenching, which were located within 15 feet of the fault. Both trenches excavated by SFB Engineering encountered the Calaveras fault. The soils in the trenches appeared to be deformed showing a downward dip toward the west. Outside of this zone, the soils maintain a relatively constant depth profile and appeared not to be affected by the faulting. The results of the trenching by SFB Engineering indicate that no additional active fault traces except the Calaveras fault are located within the project site. Page 3-58 P =FJ Ki I1 y Ho .-d Assomat 1, Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils The regional studies performed for the California Geologic Survey and the U.S. Geologic Survey resulted in one single active trace of the Calaveras Fault being located within the vicinity of the project site. Approximately 43 trenches were excavated to the north and south of the project site for the AP fault investigations, which encountered only one single active trace of the Calaveras Fault. Collectively, the results of the regional studies and site specific AP studies show only one active trace of the Calaveras fault, a trace that is constrained along an alignment adjacent to the west side of San Ramon Road just north of Interstate 580 and most likely along Foothill Road south of Interstate 580. Fault/Surface Ruptures Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Fault ruptures almost always follow pre-existing faults that are zones of weakness. Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking. Fault creep is the slow rupture of the earth's crust. As discussed above, the middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently designated AP Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras fault that was confirmed by trenching conducted by SFB Engineering. A single active fault trace extends across the project site at the approximate location shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone. The previous AP fault trenching performed to the north and south of the project site provides adequate coverage to show that only one active fault trace from the Calaveras fault extends across the project site. The active fault trace forms a straight linear line across the project site and that it is well constrained to that location, which was confirmed by SFB Engineering in the trenching completed at the project site. Future fault rupture is expected to occur along the straight linear fault projection shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback (SFB Engineering 2013). Ground Shaking Some ground shaking is likely at the proposed project area in the event of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults. The Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much more meaningful to the lay public because it is based on actual observations of earthquake effects at specific places. On the MM intensity scale, values range from I to XII. The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of"l: not felt except by very few favorably situated, to XII: damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects thrown into the air.'' An earthquake has one magnitude, but can have a range of intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay area, which is a region of high seismicity. Similar to all sites located in the San Francisco Bay area, the project site is expected to experience at least one moderate to large earthquake during the lifespan of the proposed project. The Calaveras fault traverses the project site and other nearby faults could result in strong ground shaking at the project site. P�� K,,I.y-Horn h � and Assoc re 1 Page 3-59 Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils Earthquake intensities will vary throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, depending upon numerous factors including the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the site from the causation fault and the types of materials underlying the site. The U.S. Geologic Survey indicated that there is a 63 percent change of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake striking the San Francisco Bay region between 2008 and 2037. Therefore, the project site would likely be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause strong ground shaking. According to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis interactive de-aggregation model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the project site has a ten percent probability of exceeding a peak ground acceleration of approximately 0.63g in 50 years (SFB Engineering 2013). The actual ground surface acceleration may vary depending upon the local seismic characteristics of the underlying bedrock and overlying unconsolidated soils. Regulatory Setting State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 (originally enacted as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994) and is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The main purpose of the law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Alquist- Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as ''Earthquake Fault Zones'' around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning efforts. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. California Building Standards Code (CBC) The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC. The CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout the United States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by district basis), and has been modified for conditions within California. The CBC requires extensive geotechnical analysis and engineering for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and other structures, including criteria for seismic design. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped by the CGS to assist local governments in land use planning. The intent of the Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication 1 17, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and Page 3-60 �MF,a m ,-Hw d Associates.Inc. Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations. Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to geology, soils and seismicity. Environmental Resources Management, Conservation Element 7.2: Guiding Policy I: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special concern for potential problems of erosion and siltation. 7.2: Implementing Policy J: Require erosion control plans for proposed development. Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of drainage ways, consistent with biological and visual values. Environmental Resources Management Seismic Safety and Safety Element 8.I: Guiding Policy A. Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located away from geologic hazards in order to preserve life, protect property, and reasonable limit the financial risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly located public facilities. 8.1.1 Implementing Policy A. All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Uniform Building Code and Dublin grading ordinance. A "design earthquake" shall be established by an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant design factor. 8.1.1: Implementing Policy B. Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet. These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate the fault trace. 8.1.1: Implementing Policy C. Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault, such as oil, gas, and water lines, should be designed to accommodate the maximum expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations should determine the maximum credible offset. 8.1.2: Implementing Policy A. A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineering geologist. 8.1.2: Implementing Policy B. Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the �C"Kim'ey-Horn h � ,and As—ales Inc Page 3-61 Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils Geologic Hazards and Constraints map, and for other proposed projects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The detailed analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider. I. Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide; 2. Effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns; 3. Impact of a maximum credible earthquake; 4. Where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide deposits; 5. Debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin). Care must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows. 6. Where published maps identify or show "ancient" or Quaternary slides on sites of proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the proposed development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer. 8.1.2: Implementing Policy C. If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering analysis and design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be required for all structures planned for human occupancy. 8.1.2: Implementing Policy D. Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all soils reports and design recommendations formulated where the potential is present. These analyses and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, in order to reduce future public repair costs. 8.1.2: Implementing Policy E. A fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for Special Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all development within the Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints map. The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites are specifically defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones (Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings or for public or recreational facilities. 8.1.2: Implementing Policy F. Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated. 8.13: Implementing Policy A: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated. 8.1.4: Implementing Policy A: A procedure to review all required reports and data shall be established with the Alameda County Geologist or a consulting engineering geologist shall be retained as reviewer. This individual shall participate in the review process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the project. Page 3-62 -d A ��„ d Associates.Mt Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils 8.1.4: Implementing Policy B: A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall be maintained as reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as on adjacent sites. 8,1.4: Implementing Policy C: City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and future occupants and property owners. 8.1.5: Implementing Policy A: In 1978 Alameda County adopted an Earthquake Response Directive to be incorporated in the County Emergency Operations Plan (updated March 1980). The directive applies fully to the unincorporated area and to eight contract cities. Dublin will adopt its own multi-hazard response plan. 8.1.5: Implementing Policy B: The City will prepare a route plan for evacuation of Dublin in the event of a major seismic event. Relevant Project Characteristics The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where no residential or commercial development is proposed in accordance with the recommended set-back by SFB Engineering. Development of the proposed project would be in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), City of Dub/in Genera/Plan, and City's Building Code. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse geology and soils impact if it would result in any of the following: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; • Strong seismic ground shaking; • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or o Landslides. • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; E Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; and/or hC FJK-ley ndA6 .T,,,I- Page 3-63 Heritage Park Draft FIR Geology and Soils Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. Methodology Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on the Geotechnica/ lnvest/gation and a Fault Ground-Rupture /nvestigation prepared by SFB Engineering in March 2012 and June 2013, respectively and a peer review by Cal Engineering and Geology on behalf of the City in July and August 2013; the Alameda County Soil Survey (NRCS), and the City of Dublin General Plan. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Wastewater disposal in the project vicinity is provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The proposed project would connect to the existing wastewater system. The proposed project would not need to use septic tanks or other altemative wastewater disposal systems. Consequently, the threshold of significance for septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems would not apply to the proposed project and no further analysis is required. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Potential for Landslides Impact 3.4-1: Due to the relatively flat topography within the project site and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site, the potential for landslides is considered less than significant. Due to the relatively flat topography and the lack of steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site, landslides are not considered to be a potential significant geologic hazard. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated due to the lack of landslides within the project area. Potential for Fault Rupture Impact 3.4-2: The proposed project is currently located within the designated Alquist-Priolo fault zone for the Calaveras fault, which was confirmed by SFB Engineering in their Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation (SFB Engineering 2013) and peer reviewed by CE&G on behalf of the City. The Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation recommended that no habitable structure be constructed within 25 feet of the active fault trace, but that other improvements may be located within this zone, such as open space, walkways, parking, etc. The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where no residential or commercial development is proposed. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the project site would be considered a less than significant impact. Page 3 64 i Z f,k,-eY-Ho -d Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils The middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently designated AP Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras Fault. A single active fault trace extends across the project site at the approximate location shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone. The previous AP fault trenching performed to the north and south of the project site provides adequate coverage to show that only one active fault trace from the Calaveras fault extends across the project site. The recent fault trenching performed at the project site by SFB Engineering (20 13) revealed that the active fault trace forms a straight linear line across the project site and that it is well constrained to that location. Soils observed in the trenching showed evidence of four fault rupture events, the most recent event having occurred approximately 365 years ago and that the fault rupture recurrence interval between those events is tentatively on the order of about 400 to 600 years. Future fault rupture is most likely to occur along previous traces of fault rupture. Future fault rupture is expected to occur along the straight linear fault projection shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone. The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where no residential or commercial development is proposed in accordance with the recommended set-back by SFB Engineering. In addition, future development within the project site would be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City Building Code, and policies of the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan. Compliance with the statutory and design requirements would ensure that no significant impacts related to fault zone rupture would occur. Therefore, the potential for fault rupture is considered a less than significant impact with incorporation of the 25-foot setback into the design of the proposed project, and no mitigation is required. Seismic Ground Shaking Impact 3.4-3: Ground shaking is likely to occur at the project site and in the project vicinity in the event of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people and/or structures to potentially significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes on any of the potentially active faults within the surrounding region could produce moderate ground shaking within the project site depending on the magnitude, characteristics, and location of the seismic event. Structures within the project site would be required to be designed to the most stringent standards in accordance with applicable parameters described in the current CBC. Specific engineering design and construction measures required by the CBC for the construction of new buildings are required to reduce the potential for adverse effects to human life and property caused by seismically induced ground shaking. Additionally, the proposed project would be regulated under the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the policies of the City ofDubiin Genera/Plan, and the City's Building Code. P K-ley-Horn ► and Asso wa ,1- Page 3-65 Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils To provide the adequate level of information to properly design and engineer future development consistent with statutory requirements and the City's Building code, the City's Public Works Department requires an engineering geologist to perform design-level geotechnical studies and submit them to the City for approval. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable CBC requirements with regard to the design and construction or installation of structures and improvements with regard to resisting damaging forces of seismic ground shaking. Therefore, Implementation of the following mitigation measure would therefore ensure that the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3 Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that incorporates the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation by Stevens Ferrone and Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. (March 2012). These include maintaining a minimum 25 foot setback from the center line of the Calaveras fault trace, construction of post-tensioned slab foundations, and over-excavation of disturbed weak soils and fill. The design level geotechnical report shall address site preparation and grading (including measures to address potential liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the project design and construction documents. Liquefaction Impact 3.4-4: The proposed project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Generally, when liquefaction occurs because of earthquakes, the conditions of cohesionless surface material accompanied with relatively shallow water tables underlying the area were the factor. In such cases, ground vibration increases the pore pressure resulting in water moving upward whereby turning the sand or silt into a quicksand like condition. The surface characteristics include the development of sand boils, surface cracks, ground settlement and differential compaction. Without proper soil engineering, foundation design, and construction, the proposed project could expose people and/or structures to hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure. Page 3-66 [��1 ,',d'AO Ato 1¢ Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils According to the geotechnical investigation, the project site has a moderate potential for liquefaction during a strong earthquake. Based on the geotechnical investigation there is the potential for liquefaction to occur within the occasional interbedded layers of loose to medium dense sandy soils that exist below the groundwater table. Future development within the project site would be required to comply with the City's Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the CBC, and the City's standard engineering practices and design criteria. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3 would require that the project applicant prepare a design-level geotechnical report, which would address liquefaction and reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Soil Erosion Impact 3.4-5: Implementation of the proposed project may result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during short-term construction activities within the project area. This is considered a less than significant impact. The majority of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces including buildings, parking lots, and sidewalks associated with the existing development within the project area. Earth-disturbing activities (e.g. grading and excavation) associated with construction of the proposed project has the potential to increase erosion if proper sedimentation and erosion control methods are not in place. According to the Natural Resources Conservation service (NRCS), the Yolo loam soil is characterized as having a slight to moderate erosion hazard with runoff characterized as slow to medium. The City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-1 I requires that all plans specify both long-term and short-term erosion control measures that will be implemented during construction activities to control runoff, erosion, and sediment movement prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, in order to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for storm drainage and construction site discharge, projects involving construction that are greater than one acre in size within the project area are required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which would be submitted for review by the City of Dublin Public Works Department during the Grading/Site Work and Building Permit process. The SWPPP describes the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. In addition, the NPDES permit requires implementation of non-point source control of runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are meant to reduce the amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water bodies. Examples of BMPs typically used in the City of Dublin include: Vegetated swales in parking areas; inspect dumpsters and other waste containers periodically; repair or replace leaky dumpsters and containers, cover dumpsters and other waste containers, never dispose of waste products in storm drain inlets recycle wastes or dispose properly. CM„antl'ASSOCiat-Inc Page 3-67 Heritage Park Draft EIR Geology and Soils Compliance with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-1 1: the NPDES permit process; and the City's Building Code requirements the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact from erosion during construction activities. Expansive Soil Impact 3.4-6: Implementation of the proposed project would include future development within an area that has expansive soils. With adherence to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements, this is considered a potentially significant impact. According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project, soils within the project site would be subject to expansion. A design level geotechnical analysis would be required for the proposed project as required by Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3. In addition, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements and measures in the design level geotechnical report, which would address expansive soils, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. P te„K,—y-H- Page 3-68 ►� nd As—aces nc rt x0.1 Y ♦ " 4 A u � � � f'k rt 1 , • y �/ nr • � t'• � sue, 'qf"�. oa `p a � .: L • • Ip .. 4 %'... • 1 s . • Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault ' Zone Boundaries (Approximate) - Location of Calaveras Fault Trace (Approximate) Source:Stevens Ferrone&Bailey Engineering Company,Inc.,City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2013) Heritage Park EIR ' Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Calaveras Fault CONSULTING Figure 3.4-1 ' A'- Company omp ` MAf1 . Linear notch/ ;,E-facing scarp Z- 011 \J Notch__,`; Linear notch bounded ag on east by low,scarp W-facing scarp z E-facing scarp' SW-facing scarps- ' _Shorp E-focing scarp in alluvium visible in f ` - 1939 cericl photographs BUT-BUU-279-118 NE-facing scarp--" and 13UT-BUU-279-117 ' East Facing Soil Scarp . ' Arcuate, sloping SW-facing scarp _ Linear soil pattern and low E-facing visible in 1939aerial photographs BUT-BUU-279-115 and BUT-BUU- escarp in alluvium visible in 1939 aerial 279-116 photographs BUT-BUU-279-116 and,; BUT-BUU-279-117 eitCl -Fiu;m7 Linear soil soil pattern and Ipw�� E-facing scarp in oliuviu hear ) x' still visible here in 1977 Trou h g C a- a --- SITE �- NE Facing Scarp in Soil (?) ••R ~'Sharp NE-facing scores Trund6d Hillside NE Fac g ' Solid Line Where Clearly Evident, Scarp A --- Dashed Where Approximate NE-facing scarp SW-facing scarp along fan channel in Ntio-Meistoce Source:Stevens Ferrone&Bailey Engineering Company,Inc.(2013) Heritage Park EIR 0 Calaveras Fault Traces and Exploratory Trenching ACONSULTING Figure 3.4-2 A-. Company y Site uxveyed? Boundary Locat � �au I� CF- - n of Trench by .S e 112 and 6/11113 to ning ' on of Trench Reported n of Active ce e —2 ' g Zone 1 Location of SFB — Fault To B Be Surveyed 1+40 0+00 Approximate Location of Trench by SFB (2/13/12 to 2/16/12 and 6/11/13 to 6/14/13), with Stationing 1 Approximate Location of Trench Reported by Terrasearch (1975) Approximate Location of Active Calaveras Fault Trace ' -------- Building Setback Line r��M' No Habitable Building Zone NOTE:Topographic Map was provided by CBG(2013). Source:Stevens Ferrone&Bailey Engineering Company,Inc.(2013) Heritage Park EIR . . Habitable Building Setback Zone 0 A NG Figure 3.4-3 ' A-. Co Company ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ' This section analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The GHG emission modeling for 1 the proposed project is in Appendix B. Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the 1 "greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three-fold process, summarized as follows: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave ' radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This "trapping" of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases ' have greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. For this reason, and to gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and ' re-radiate long wave radiation. GHGs include, but are not limited to,the following:2 Water Vapor(Hz� Although water vapor has not received the scrutiny of other GHGs, it is the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect. Natural processes, such as evaporation from oceans and rivers, and transpiration from plants, contribute 90 percent and 10 percent of the water vapor in our atmosphere, respectively. ' The primary human related source of water vapor comes from fuel combustion in motor vehicles; however, this is not believed to contribute a significant amount (less than one percent) to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. The I ntergove m mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not determined a Global Warming Potential for water vapor. The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere,which varies in height from the Earth's surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. 2 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100-year Global Warming Potential. Unless noted otherwise, all Global Warming Potentials were obtained from the I ntergovem mental Panel on Climate Change. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, The Soence of Climate Change— Contribution of Working Group /to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, 1996). Coln and ASSOCatM Page 3-69 Heritage Park Draft EIR ' Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change • Carbon Dioxide (COJ. Carbon dioxide is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial , facilities and mobile sources in the past 250 years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 39 percent.3 Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining ' Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs. • Methane (CHI Methane is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. Methane is the primary component , of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The Global Warming Potential of CH4 is 21. • Nitrous Oxide (N200). Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human , related sources. Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and , stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The Global Warming Potential of N20 is 310. _Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs. HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is growing, as the continued phase out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 140 for HFC-152a to 11,700 for HFC-23.4 • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing are the largest known man-made sources of two per fluorocarbons (PFCs): tetrafl uoro methane (CF4) and tetrafl u oro methane (C2F6). PerFluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a Global Wan-ning Potential several ' thousand times that of CO2, depending on the specific PFC. PFCs are also relatively minor substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF4 and C21`6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years respectively. The Global Warming Potentials of CF4 and C2F6 emissions are approximately 6,500 and 9,200, respectively.5 • Su/fur hexafluoride (2EF6. Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the IPCC with a Global 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2011,April 2013. 4 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Accessed on July 15,2013. s http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/fgases.htmi ' Ibid. CC/i Page 3-70 ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Warming Potential of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the Global Warming Potential would indicate due to its low mixing ratio compared to CO2 (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm], respectively.6 ' In addition to the six major GHGs discussed above (excluding water vapor), many other compounds have the potential to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some of these substances were previously identified as stratospheric ozone (03) depletors; therefore, their gradual phase out is currently in effect. The following is a listing of these compounds: ' Hydroch/orofluorocarbons (HCFCs). HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, all ' developed countries that adhere to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out of HCFCs. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The Global Warming ' Potentials of HCFCs range from 93 for HCFC-123 to 2,000 for HCFC-142b /,/,/ trichloroethane. 1,I,1 trichloroethane or methyl chloroform is a solvent and degreasing agent commonly used by manufacturers. The Global Warming Potential ' of methyl chloroform is 110 times that of CO2.8 Ch lorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are used as refrigerants, cleaning solvents, and aerosols spray propellants. CFCs were also part of the EPA's Final Rule (57 FR 3374) for the phase out Of 03 depleting substances. Currently, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs in cooling systems and a variety of alternatives for cleaning solvents. Nevertheless, CFCs remain suspended in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. CFCs are potent GHGs with Global Warming Potentials ranging from 4,000 for CFC I I to 14,000 for CFC 13.9 Regulatory Setting ' Federal The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires the EPA to define national ambient air quality standards (national standards) to protect public health and welfare in the United States. The FCAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, on April 2, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. U.S. Envlronmental Protection Agency, determined 6 Ibid. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for ' Ozone Depleting Substances,dated October 29,2009.Accessed on November 5,2013. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/january/Day-19/pr-372.html, s Ibid. 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Class I Ozone Depleting Substances, August 19, 2010. Accessed on ' November 5,2013. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html ranft ft Page 3-71 Heritage Park Draft EIR ' Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the FCAA. The EPA adopted an endangerment finding and cause or contribute finding for GHGs on December 7, 2009. ' Under the endangerment finding, the Administrator found that the current and projected atmospheric concentrations of the six, key, well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Under the cause or contribute finding, the Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. ' Based on these findings, on April 1, 2010, the EPA finalized the light-duty vehicle rule controlling GHG emissions. This rule confirmed that January 2, 201 1, is the earliest date ' that a 2012 model year vehicle meeting these rule requirements may be sold in the United States. On May 13, 2010, the EPA issued the final GHG Tailoring Rule. This rule set ' thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. Implementation of the Federal rules is expected to reduce the level of emissions from new motor vehicles and large stationary sources. State ' California Global Climate Change Regulatory Programs Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California's contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of ' global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is occurring, and that there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental ' cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions. ' Executive Order S-1-07. Executive Order S-1-07 proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California, generating more than 40 percent of ' statewide emissions. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least ten percent by 2020. This order also directs CARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) could be adopted as a discrete early-action measure as part of the effort to meet the mandates in AB 32. Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which 1 statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; ' • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. 6 Page 3-72 n ►� Wda,ft i ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California's resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of Cal/EPA created the California Climate Action Team (CAT), made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory ' programs. Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 seeks to enhance the State's management of climate impacts including sea level rise, increased temperatures, shifting precipitation, and extreme weather events by facilitating the development of State's first climate adaptation strategy. This will result in consistent guidance from experts on how to ' address climate change impacts in the State of California. Executive Order S-14-08. Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State's Renewable Energy ' Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the "Renewable Electricity Standard" on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers. ' Executive Order 5-20-04. Executive Order S-20-04, the California Green Building Initiative, (signed into law on December 14, 2004), establishes a goal of reducing energy use in State- , owned buildings by 20 percent from a 2003 baseline by 2015. It also encourages the private commercial sector to set the same goal. The initiative places the California Energy Commission (CEC) in charge of developing a building efficiency benchmarking system, ' commissioning and retro-commissioning (commissioning for existing commercial buildings) guidelines, and developing and refining building energy efficiency standards under Title 24 to meet this goal. ' Executive Order S-21-09. Executive Order 5-21-09, 33 percent Renewable Energy for California, directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002) which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006) which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 ' percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan 11. Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the ' California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; Califomia Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a CC/1 b ASSOCMO& Page 3-73 Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to ' AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. Assembly Bill 1493. AB 1493 (also known as the Pavley Bill) requires that CARB develop ' and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve "the maximum feasible reduction of GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the ' State." To meet the requirements of AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) in 2004 by adding GHG emissions standards to Califorriia's existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961 and adoption of 13 CCR Section 1961.1 require automobile manufacturers , to meet fleet-average GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium-duty weight classes for passenger vehicles (i.e., any ' medium-duty vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily to transport people), beginning with the 2009 model year. Emissions limits are reduced further in each model year through 2016. When fully phased in, the ' near-term standards will result in a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent. , Assembly Bill 3018. AB 3018 established the Green Collar Jobs Council (GCJC) under the California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB). The GCJC will develop a comprehensive ' approach to address Califomia's emerging workforce needs associated with the emerging green economy. This bill will ignite the development of job training programs in the clean and green technology sectors. ' Senate Bill 97. SB 97, signed in August 2007 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007; PRC Sections 21083.05 and 21097), acknowledges that climate change is a prominent environmental ' issue that requires analysis under CEQA. This bill directs the Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which is part of the State Natural Resources Agency, to prepare, develop, and transmit to CARB guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions (or ' the effects of GHG emissions), as required by CEQA. OPR published a technical advisory recommending that CEQA lead agencies make a good- faith effort to estimate the quantity of GHG emissions that would be generated by a proposed project. Specifically, based on available information, CEQA lead agencies should estimate the emissions associated with project-related vehicular traffic, energy consumption, ' water usage, and construction activities to determine whether project-level or cumulative impacts could occur, and should mitigate the impacts where feasible. OPR requested CARB Page 3-74 Can"and° '&k ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change technical staff to recommend a method for setting CEQA thresholds of significance as ' described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 that will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the State. The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments prepared by OPR, as directed by SB 97. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administration Law approved the CEQA Guidelines Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State ' for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. ' Senate Bill 375. SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt ' a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs ' emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO's SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation ' projects may not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012. Senate Bills 1078 and 107. SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010. Senate Bill 1368. SB 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) is the companion bill of AB 32 and was signed into law in September 2006. SB 1368 required the California Public ' Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a performance standard for base load generation of GHG emissions by investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. SB 1368 also required the CEC to establish a similar standard for local publicly owned utilities by June 30, 2007. ' These standards could not exceed the GHG emissions rate from a base load combined- cycle, natural gas—fired plant. Furthermore, the legislation states that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated by plants that meet the standards set by CPUC and CEC. CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan, which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. CARB's Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce COzeq emissions by 174 million metric tons CCn and AsgocOft W= Page 3-75 Heritage Park Draft EIR , Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State's projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MT CO2eq 10 under a "Business As Usual" (BAU)1 1 scenario. This is a reduction of ' 42 million MT CO2eq, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020. CARB's Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. At the time ' CARB's Scoping Plan process was initiated, 2004 was the most recent year for which actual data was available. The measures described in CARB's Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32. , Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District ' The BAAQMD is the public agency responsible for regulating stationary sources of air pollution in the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay. The BAAQMD also , provides guidance to Lead Agencies, consultants, and other parties regarding air quality analyses conducted pursuant to CEQA. The BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guide lines provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG ' impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. The BAAQMD's approach to developing a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG ' emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an , Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. 10 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) -A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse , gases based upon their global warming potential. "Business as Usual" refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the "definition:' It is broad enough to allow ' for design features to be counted as reductions. GZFJ Page 3-76 and"sS0C�k° ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the ' BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance) the City of Dublin will nonetheless exercise its own discretion to rely on the thresholds within the Options and justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD Options and ' Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guide lines On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Courts decision, holding that ' BAAQMD's promulgation of the thresholds was not a project subject to CEQA review. The court also concluded that BAAQMD's thresholds were supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. Table 3.5-1: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds, presents the project-level thresholds for GHG emissions. ' The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD also recommends that the Lead Agency ' should make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as required by the Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2. The Lead Agency 1s encouraged to incorporate ' best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and applicable. ' Table 3.5-I: BAAQMD GHG Thresholds Project Type Construction- Operational-Related Related ' Compliance with Qualified Climate Action Plan Projects other than Stationary None OR Sources' 1,100 MTCO2eq/yr. ' OR 4.6 MTCO2e /SP2/ r. Stationary Sources None I 10,000 MTCO2e / r. ' MTCO2e / r.= metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes: 1:According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,a stationary source project is one that includes land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require a BAAQMD ' permit to operate. Projects other than stationary sources are land use development projects including residential,commercial,industrial,and public uses that do not require a BAAQMD permit to operate. 2: SP=service population residents+em Io ees Source: BAAQMD, Options and Justification Report, October 2009 and BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,May 2011. Page 3-77 Heritage Park Draft EIR , Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City of Dublin City of Dublin Climate Action Plan ' The City of Dublin prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in October 2010. The City's CAP provides background on actions ' taken to curb GHG emissions; presents Dublin's baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business-as-usual scenario; establishes a GHG emissions reduction target; and presents steps for implementation of the CAP and ' monitoring and verification of the CAP to achieve the designated emissions reduction target. The CAP serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions ' and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the CAP will reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures ' identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code Section ' 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15 183.5, 15064, and 15130. Impacts and Mitigation Measures ' Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guide lines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ' significant impact on the environment.; and/or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of , reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (the City's Climate Action Plan). Impacts and Mitigation Measures Greenhouse Gas Emissions , Impact 3.5-1: Greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. This is considered a less than significant impact. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project (i.e., COz, NZO, and CH4)would be ' generated by construction activities, as well as from vehicle miles traveled (VMT), area sources, energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to generate other forms of GHG emissions in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ' BAU GHG emissions are those that would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project (54 small lot single family homes, and a 14,000 square foot office , C C Page 3-78 /1�� ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change building). As previously stated, BAU refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reduction measures. The proposed project would demolish and replace the existing 1 10,000 square foot office complex; therefore, Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N20, and CH4 emissions of the ' proposed project, as well as the existing uses. Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions CO2 CH4 N20 Total Metric Source Metric Metric Metric Tons Metric LMetHc Tons of Tons of Tons/yr' Tons/yr of CO2eg2 Tons/yr e 2 CO2eq ' Existing Emissions Area Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile Source 1,233.81 0.06 1.30 0.00 0.00 1,235.17 ' Energy 731.81 0.03 0.63 7.75 2,403 3,143.22 Waste 20.77 1.23 25.80 0.00 0.00 47.80 Water Demand 49.98 0.64 13.40 0.02 6.20 70.24 ' Total Existing Emissions 2,036.37 1.96 41.13 7.77 2,409.20 4,496.43 Proposed Business As Usual Emissions Area Source 10.22 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.00 10.66 Mobile Source 794.92 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.00 795.58 ' Energy 305.92 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 306.14 Waste 15.77 0.93 19.50 0.00 0.00 36.20 Water Demand 15.17 0.20 4.20 0.00 0.00 19.57 ' Total Proposed Emissions 1,142.00 1.19 24.96 0.00 0.00 1,168.15 Net Business As Usual GHG -3,328.28 MTCO2eq Emissions ' GHG Threshold 1,100 MTCO2e Notes: 1. Emissions calculated using CalEEMod computer model. 2. CO2 Equivalent values calculated using the EPA Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html,accessed November 11,2013. 3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding. . Refer to Appendix B,Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data,for detailed model input/output data. ' Direct Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ' Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from area and mobile sources. Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, estimates the CO2, N20, and CH4 emissions of the proposed project. The proposed project Is not anticipated to generate other forms of GHG emissions in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. GHG emissions estimations are based on an estimate of traffic trips, as well as land use data. ' Mobile source emissions would represent the greatest amounts of GHGs generated from the proposed project. The proposed project would directly result in 795.58 CUPI W,ft Page 3-79 Heritage Park Draft EIR ' Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change MTCO2eq/year of mobile source GHG emissions. Area source emissions as a result of the proposed project would be 10.66 MTCO2eq/year. N2O and CH4 emissions were first ' calculated in metric tons/year, then converted to MTCO2eq/year utilizing the EPA's GHG equivalencies calculator. Converting emissions to comparable units (MTCO2eq/year) allows for the summation of all GHG emissions. , Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land ' use data. The potential development within the project area would indirectly result in 306.14 MTCO2eq/year due to energy usage; refer to Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse ' Gas Emissions. Water demand for the proposed uses would be approximately 264 million gallons of water , per year. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 19.57 MTCO2eq/year. Total Business As Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ' As shown in Table 3.5-2: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the BAU GHG emissions at project buildout would total 1,168.15 MTCO2eq/year, net emissions would be reduced , by 3,328.28 MTCO2eq/year due to the reduction in mobile source emissions, etc. The BAAQMD threshold for GHG emissions is 1,100 MTCO2eq/year, therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD GHG threshold under the BAU scenario. , Therefore, GHG emissions would be less than significant. Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations ' Impact 3.5-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable greenhouse gas reduction plan, policy, or regulation. This is ' considered a less than significant impact. As previously noted, the City of Dublin prepared a CAP and Initial Study/Mitigated ' Negative Declaration in October 2010. The City's CAP serves as the City of Dublin's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions and climate change. The City has ' determined that the reduction target of 20 percent from BAU under the CAP would reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures ' identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact. Table 3.5-3: Project Consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan Measures, discusses the project compliance with several of the CAP measures aimed at reducing ' community-wide GHG emissions. Page 3-80 ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Table 3.5-3: Project Consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan Measures tTransportation and land Use Measures A.1.1: Transit-Oriented Development. Measure A.I.I The project site is located approximately 0.42 miles from ' discusses the City's plan for the Dublin Transit Center, the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Additionally, located near the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. the project site is located within walking distance (less than The Dublin Transit Center allows for the construction of 0.4-mile) of Wheels Bus Routes 503, 10, 3, and R along ' high-density residential uses, campus office uses, San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Because the commercial uses, and a park. project site is located within close proximity to transit, residents and employees would be encouraged to utilize transit. Therefore, the proposed project is compliant with ' CAP Measure A.1.1. A.1.8: General Plan Community Design and Sustainability The proposed project is an infill project, and incorporates Element. The Community Design and Sustainability the General Plan Community Design and Sustainability ' Element establishes design principles, policies, and Element vision for a diverse, functional and aesthetically implementation measures to enhance the livability of appealing community that guides compatible land uses, Dublin and encourages a high level of quality design that community design, and sustainable development to supports sustainability. preserve a healthy quality of life for the present and future ' generations. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with CAP Measure A.1.8. A.1.10: Bikeways Master Plan. Policies in the City's The City's Bikeways Master Plan provides goals, policies ' Bikeways Master Plan include the continued development and standards for developing and implementing a bikeway of successful bicycle and pedestrian trail corridors, system. The proposed project promotes viable improved bicycle access to parks and open space areas, transportation altematives to the automobile and supports improved bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key cross- walking and bicycling throughout the project site and ' city corridors, bikeways on key freeway crossings, the vicinity, with safe and convenient access to transit, open development of education and enforcement programs, space,trails, parks, and other recreational amenities. Thus, and improvements to the City's Bicycle Parking Ordinance. as the proposed project would be consistent with the ' City's Bikeways Master Plan, the project would be compliant with CAP Measure A.I.10. Ene Measures A.2.1: Green Building Ordinance. In 2009,the City passed The Green Building Ordinance provides policies and a Green Building Ordinance requiring residential projects standards that address the City's requirements for over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rating encouraging sustainable design and construction practices system. Altematively, LEED for Homes is approved in the of buildings. The proposed project would comply with the ' ordinance. Other types of rating systems may be approved California Green Code requirements. Additionally, the by the City's Green Building Official on a case-by-case proposed project would include high efficiency lighting in basis. The majority of residential projects within the City the proposed residential units and office building. As the are subject to the Green Building Ordinance. proposed project is consistent with the City's Green Building Ordinance, the proposed project would be compliant with CAP Measure A.2.1. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures A.3.1: Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance. The City requires all construction and demolition projects Since 2005, the City has implemented a Construction and to recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job Demolition Debris Ordinance with a required 100% of site. As the proposed project would be required to asphalt and concrete recycled, and a minimum of 50% of comply with the City's Construction and Demolition ' all other materials recycled. The City's diversion rate has Debris Ordinance, the proposed project would be consistently been between 80% and 90% since 2005, well compliant with CAP Measure A.3.1. above the 50%requirement. Page 3-81 Heritage Park Draft EIR ' Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 1 Climate Action Plan Measure Pro ect Applicability A.3.4: Commercial Recycling Program. In 2005, the City Free recycling service is available to all commercial ' began offering a free commercial recycling program that customers that subscribe to garbage service. The also includes free indoor recycling containers for schools proposed project encourages solid waste reduction and businesses. Indoor recycling containers encourage measures, including implementing recycling and ' employees and students to recycle by conveniently composting services on the project site. Convenient and locating recycling containers near their work areas, readily accessible recycling facilities would be provided A.3.6: Promote Commercial Recycling. In 2005, the City within the new residential and office developments. Thus, began promoting commercial recycling in the City. The the proposed project would be compliant with CAP 1 City has developed commercial recycling guides for Measures A.3.4 and A.3.6. businesses and the City's franchise waste hauler conducts two business audits per business day to increase diversion 1 efforts in the commercial sector. Programs for recycling contribute to reducing the energy and transportation needed to manufacture and ship virgin products and therefore play an important role in the City's efforts to ' reduce GHG emissions associated with the waste sector. The proposed project includes several measures that would be consistent with the CAP ' measures. The project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for GHG emissions, as it would result in a net reduction of 3,328.28 MTCOZeq/year. Therefore, as the project is consistent with the CAP, and the CAP is consistent with AB 32, the 1 proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32, and the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD's 1,100 MTCOZeq/year threshold, a less than significant impact would occur. 1 1 1 i 1 i i Page 3-82 can" " ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ' The purpose of this section is to identify the potential for the proposed project to expose the public or the environment to hazards and hazardous materials related to existing ' conditions or new hazards created as a result of the proposed project. Where significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. This section is based on a review of the Phase I Environmental Site ' Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site on behalf of the project applicant by Bureau Veritas (dated February 21, 2012). The Phase I ESA is included as Appendix D of this Draft EIR. Environmental Setting Regional Setting The proposed project is located in the Amado r-Livermore Valley region of eastern Alameda County, within the California Coast Ranges Physiographic Province. The project ' site consists of a broad alluvial plain within the Amador-Livermore Valley that contains sedimentary deposits derived from the surrounding hills. ' Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials include substances that are corrosive, poisonous, radioactive, flammable, or explosive. Although the City of Dublin has industrial and commercial ' activities within and in the project vicinity that store, use, and dispose of hazardous materials, no regional groundwater conditions have been identified in the project area. Hazardous Materials Transport Hazardous materials are transported through the City regularly along major transportation corridors, including Interstates 580 and 680, and several arterial streets (including San ' Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Dublin Boulevard). Local streets within the City provide access to commercial and industrial businesses. ' Airport Hazards The closest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is located ' approximately 5.8 miles east of the project site. The airport is a general aviation airport which serves private, business, and corporate tenants and customers. Based on Figure 3-1, Airport Influence Area, of the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ' (August 27, 2012), the project site is not located within the airport influence area. Wildland Fire Hazards According to the City of Dublin General Plan, steep, inaccessible slopes and brush create a high fire hazard in the western hills. Additionally, areas within the Extended Planning Areas that are adjacent to open space are susceptible to fire hazards. Due to the location of the ' project site (within a developed area of the central portion of the City), the proposed project is not located within an area that would be subject to wildland fires. Page 3-83 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project Setting The project site consists of a complex of two-story commercial office buildings (Heritage ' Park Office). These buildings were constructed between 1978 and 1981. Other developed areas of the project site include paved areas for parking as well as areas of omamental ' landscaping. One AT&T-owned cellular telephone tower and associated equipment shelter are located at the northeast comer of the project site. Adjoining uses primarily consist of commercial and institutional uses. Institutional uses ' (Church of Christ) and commercial uses (Shell Station and a restaurant) are located to the north of the project site. San Ramon Road bounds the project site to the east and commercial office buildings are present beyond. Vacant land associated with Dublin Creek and transportation uses (Interstate 580 [I-580]) are located to the south. Donlon Way bounds the western portion of the project site, with Heritage Park and Museums located ' beyond. Current Operations ' There are approximately 80 tenant office spaces on-site within the existing Heritage Park Office complex. The interior areas variously include offices, kitchenettes, and restrooms. There is one hydraulic elevator located on-site. , Hazardous Materials Currently, no regulated quantities of hazardous materials are present within the project site. t The Phase I ESA noted one hydraulic elevator tank on-site that stores hydraulic oil. The hydraulic oil tank appeared to be in good condition, with no obvious staining or leaking. ' Two pad-mounted transformers owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were observed on the project site in paved parking areas. No obvious evidence of release from these transformers was observed as part of the Phase I ESA. ' Government Code Section 65962.5 Govemment Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control ' (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a regulatory sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The State Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking ' water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 1 16395 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 , of the Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The project site is not listed on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2013). Historical Uses ' Based on the Phase I ESA, the project site appears to have been developed for residential/agricultural use from 1906 until the late 1970s. By 1981, the project site appears Page 3-84 con. ftIn. ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials to have been developed with the existing on-site structures. Although not documented at ' the project site, agricultural chemicals (e.g., organochlorine pesticides and metal compounds) may have been applied while the site was under agricultural production. These activities can result in residual agricultural chemicals to be present in the near surface ' soils (i.e., I to 3 feet below ground surface [bgs]). These residual agricultural chemicals may influence the off-site disposal of soil or pose a health risk to residential site users at the project site. However, based on the Phase I ESA, these residual chemicals, if present, are not typically at concentrations that would require cleanup by a regulatory agency or pose a significant human health risk. In addition, the project site was redeveloped, following this historical use, to the existing on-site commercial/office uses. Therefore, based on the past ' disturbance of the project site and unlikely presence of elevated concentrations, the Phase I ESA determined that this historical use is not anticipated to have resulted in an ' environmental condition associated with the current on-site soil conditions. Since development of the Heritage Park Office complex by 1981, occupancy has generally been related to office use, but has included some light biomedical operations that generated medical waste until at least 1996. According to the Phase I ESA, bio hazardous wastes associated with the Chabot Dialysis Center were historically observed in small ' containers inside one on-site building and large containers outside one building. The bio hazardous wastes were reportedly hauled off-site by a licensed waste contractor and there were no reported non-compliance citations against Chabot Dialysis Center. No ' underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were identified. Several 55-gallon drums of acid stored outside of one building was noted in the Phase I ESA. A reverse osmosis water purification system consisting of two carbon tanks, one ' water softener tank, one brine tank, and one 550-gallon water holding tank was also documented. No manufacturing activities were noted in association with the project site. Based on the Phase I ESA, no contamination has been reported in association with these ' past on-site activities. Potential Groundwater Contamination Based on the Phase I ESA, in 2008, the City of Dublin redeveloped the former off-site Dublin Square Shopping Center to a city park (Heritage Park). This property is located approximately 200 feet west and up-gradient of the project site. During park construction, three USTs and a concrete vault were discovered and removed from the northwestern portion of the property. In addition, 280 tons of petroleum-impacted soil was removed. Verification groundwater sampling was not conducted and this off-site property remains an ' active open case under regulatory oversight by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH). According to the Phase I ESA, the unknown status of groundwater associated with this up-gradient release presents a potential contamination tconcern for groundwater underlying the project site. C�I1 d As=m,a%W_ Page 3-85 Heritage Park Draft EIR ' Hazards and Hazardous Materials Regulatory Setting Federal and State A material is considered hazardous if it has been designated as such by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The ' California Code of Regulations defines a hazardous material as a substance that, because of physical or chemical properties, its quantity, concentration, or other characteristics, may either (1) cause an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed (22 CCR Section 66260.10 and California Health and Safety Code [HSC] Section 25501). Based on this definition, "hazardous materials" include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health ' and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment (22 CCR Section 66260.10). Chemical residuals in soil that are the result of the normal application of fertilizer, plant pesticides for agricultural purposes do not constitute a release of hazardous substances under the California Hazardous Substances Account Act (HSC Section 25321 (d)). ' Similarly, the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) exempts parties from liability for the application of federally-registered pesticides [42 USC Section 9607(i)]. Regulation of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes occurs at the federal, state, and local levels of government. On the federal level, many hazardous materials-related ' regulations are promulgated by the EPA. Additional regulations pertaining to work place standards and for transportation of hazardous materials are enforced by the United States Department of Labor Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the ' United States Department of Transportation (DOT). In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) the authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management and regulatory program (Unified Program). The purpose of the Unified Program is to consolidate and coordinate six different haz ardous materials and hazardous waste programs, and to insure that they are consistently implemented throughout the state. The unified program is overseen by CaIEPA with support from the DTSC, SWRCB, the Office of Emergency Services, and the State Fire Marshal. State law requires county and local agencies to implement the Unified Program. The county and local agencies in charge of implementing the program are called "Certified , Unified Program Agency" (CUPA). The Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) is the designated CUPA for the City and is the administrative agency that , coordinates and enforces numerous local, state, and federal hazardous materials CZn Page 3-86 and AssocWe& i Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials i management and environmental protection programs in the City. The CUPA administers the following programs: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program —Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP's). HMBP's contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials and/or waste. Each business shall prepare a HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material and/or waste or an extremely hazardous material in quantities greater than or equal to the following: 55 gallons for a liquid 500 pounds of a solid 200 cubic feet for any compressed gas Hazardous Waste Generator Program -The Hazardous Waste Generator Program regulates businesses that generate any amount of a hazardous waste. Proper handling, recycling, treating, storing and disposing of hazardous waste are key elements to this program. Underground Storage Tank Program - The UST program regulates the construction, operation, repair and removals of UST systems used to store hazardous materials and/or waste. California Accidental Release Program - The California Accidental Release Program (Cal ARP) requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of an extremely hazardous substance to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP is implemented by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated substances that could have off- , site consequences through hazard identification, planning, source reduction, maintenance, training, and engineering controls. ' Tiered Permitting Program - The Tiered Permitting Program regulates the onsite treatment of hazardous waste. Aboveground Storage Tank Program - Facilities with a single tank or cumulative aboveground storage capacities of 1,320 gallons or greater of petroleum-based liquid product (gasoline, diesel, lubricants, etc.) must develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure plan (SPCC). An SPCC plan must be prepared in accordance with the oil pollution prevention guidelines in the Federal Code of Regulations (40 CFR, 1 12). This plan must include procedures, methods, and equipment at the facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching navigable waters. A Registered Professional Engineer must certify an SPCC plan and a complete copy of the plan must be maintained on site. C./1 a„"°"c°', k= Page 3-87 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials Local Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) The ACDEH is the administrative agency that coordinates and enforces numerous local, state, and federal hazardous materials management and environmental protection programs in the County. As the CUPA, the County administers the following programs: • Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program • Hazardous Waste Generator Program • Underground Storage Tank Program • California Accidental Release Program • Tiered Permitting Program • Aboveground Storage Tank Program • Survey and inspection of waste tire facilities using a grant from the CalRecycle. City of Dublin General Plan The Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the City of Dublin Genera/Plan (General Plan) includes the following policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials at the project site: 8.3.4.l A.• Guiding Policies I. Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate action during emergencies. 2. Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from contaminated sites. , 8.3.4.l B.• Implementing Policies I. Consider formation of a regional hazardous materials team consisting of specially , trained personnel from all Tri-Valley public safety agencies. 2. As part of the City's Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan, the City has adopted a Hazardous Materials Response Plan. The City will periodically review the Plan to prepare for and respond to emergencies related to hazardous materials. 3. Periodically review and enforce the City's ordinances regulating the handling, ' transport, and storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. 4. Require site-specific hazardous materials studies for new development projects where there is a potential for the presence of hazardous materials from previous uses on the site. If hazardous materials are found, require the clean-up of sites to acceptable regulatory standards prior to development. Page 3-88 ,e&,n Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1 City of Dublin Zoning Code Chapter 8.60, Hazardous Waste Facilities Location Procedure, regulates hazardous waste facilities in the City of Dublin. The purpose of Chapter 8.60 is to establish uniform standards, land use regulations, and a permit process for controlling the location, design, maintenance and safety of off-site hazardous waste facilities. These standards, regulations and process are intended to be consistent with Article 8.7 of the California Health and 1 Safety Code, applicable portions of the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and the City of Dublin General Plan. City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan The purpose of the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan is to reduce the risk of open land wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent with the reasonable protection of 1 wildlife habitat and other open space values. The Wildfire Management Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1996 and amended in 2001 and revised in 2002. The Wildfire Management Plan provides for development of. a Fire Buffer Zone between open space/undeveloped lands and developed properties. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Methodology This section is based on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site and included as Appendix E of this Draft EIR. Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: 1 . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school; Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; C�I1 Page 3-89 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and/or ' • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Potential for Airport Hazards The closest airport/airstrip to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located approximately 5.8 miles to the east. Furthermore, according to the Livermore Municipa/Airport Master Plan, the project site is not located within the approach zones and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for any people residing or working in the area, which would be considered no impact. , Potential for Wildfire Hazards Wildfire impacts may be considered significant if the proposed project would expose , people or structures to a significant risk, loss, injury or death involving wildfires, including where wildlands are located adjacent to urban areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. As the project site is located in an urban area in the central portion of the ' City and is surrounded by existing development, it is not subject to potential wildfire hazards and the proposed project would therefore have no impact in this regard. Government Code Section 65962.5 The project site is not listed on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact would result in this regard. Routine Transport, Use, and/or Disposal of Hazardous Materials , Impact 3.6-1 The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as implementation of existing federal, state and local standards and regulations would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. The proposed project involves the demolition of existing commercial structures and the construction of residential and office uses. Based on age of the existing structures (constructed between 1978 and 198 1) located at the project site, ACMs and LBPs are not anticipated to be associated with on-site building materials. Furthermore, long-term operations associated with proposed residential uses would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Proposed office uses (such as medical office or laboratory/research operations) could store, handle, and/or transport hazardous materials. If this is the case, these businesses would be required to procure business plans and adhere to strict procedures enforced by the ACDEH. Thus, Page 3-90 cOn ", -atmk 1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials implementation of the existing federal, state, and local standards and regulations, ' implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impact. Handle/Emit Hazardous Materials in the Vicinity of a School Impact 3.6-2 Residential uses at the project site are not anticipated to handle/emit hazardous materials in the vicinity of a school. Future commercial uses would be required to comply with existing federal, state and local standards and regulations if minor amounts of hazardous materials are used on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would 1 result in a less than significant impact pertaining to the handling of hazardous materials in the vicinity of a school. The nearest school to the project site is the Little Kids Learning Center (located at 11760 Dublin Boulevard approximately 0.08 mile northwest of the project site). Construction activities are not anticipated to include the handling of regulated quantities of hazardous 1 materials. Regulated hazardous materials are not typically associated with residential uses. Minor amounts of hazardous materials may be handled/stored/used on-site within the proposed office building. However, these businesses would be required to procure 1 business plans and adhere to strict procedures enforced by the ACDEH. Thus, with implementation of the existing federal, state, and local standards and regulations, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact pertaining to the handling of hazardous substances, if any, within a quarter mile of a school site. Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan/Emergency Evacuation Plan Impact 3.6-3: The proposed project would result in a decrease in vehicle trips to the project site and therefore would not obstruct or impair the operation of 1 major streets in the project vicinity including Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City of Dublin emergency evacuation routes and 1 emergency access at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response plans and evacuation routes. The project site is currently accessed at two driveways along Donlon Way. With implementation of the proposed project, the project site would continue to be accessed from Donlon Way. Project operations would also result in a net decrease in persons at the project site and vehicle trips accessing the project site. The proposed project would not obstruct or impair operation of major streets in the vicinity, including Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan through the City. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City of Dublin emergency evacuation routes and emergency access at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response plans and evacuation plans. CC/1 wAS ASSOCOM ft Page 3-91 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials Accidental Conditions During Construction Impact 3.6-4: Construction activities at the project site may result in accidental conditions as a result of potentially contaminated groundwater underlying the project site. This is a potentially significant impact , However, with implementation of the recommended mitigation, this potentially significant impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substances could occur is through accidental release, particularly during construction/site disturbance activities. Construction equipment may result in petroleum-based fuel spills. The level of risk associated with this type of spill is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during the construction phases. The project contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment in the event of a spill. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released would be appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal law, as identified above. Human exposure of contaminated groundwater can also have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. Based on the Phase I ESA, potentially contaminated groundwater may underlie the project site as a result of past release from USTs at Heritage Paris. Construction workers could be exposed to hazardous substances during grading/excavation activities, should groundwater be encountered. This is a potentially significant impact. 1 With implementation of the following mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure MM 3.6-4 Review Files for the former Dublin Square Shopping Center and Prepare a r WonkerSafetyPlaa Priorto issuance of a grading permit, an environmental consultant with Phase II/site characterization experience shall review the existing files maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health for the Heritage Park site and prepare a worker safety plan to ensure constriction worker safety during grading/excavation activities. Accidental Conditions During Operation Impact 3.6-5: During operation of the proposed project, there is the potential for the ' residential uses to be exposed to hazardous vapors as a result of contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the project site. This is a Page 3-92 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials potentially significant impact. With implementation of the recommended ' mitigation,this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of residential and office uses at the project site. Long-term operations would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of any regulated hazardous materials (other than those typical of office uses). However, proposed residential uses could be exposed to hazardous vapor conditions as a result of potentially contaminated groundwater in the vicinity. Based on the Phase I ESA, a release of hazardous materials to the groundwater has not yet received case closure from the appropriate regulatory agency at the Heritage Park site. The project site is also located adjacent to an existing Shell gasoline station (adjoining the project site to the northeast). Although this gas station has received case closure by the SWRCB for former releases to groundwater, this case closure was obtained assuming commercial uses at the project site. Based on available files maintained by the SWRCB,this site includes land use restrictions for commercial uses (no residential uses allowed), indicating that some residual contamination may still be present (SWRCB 2013). With these considerations, there is a potential for vapor encroachment onto the project site from this off-site use as well. The intrusion of subsurface vapors into buildings is one of many exposure pathways that must be considered in assessing the risk posed by releases of hazardous chemicals into the environment. Based on the moderate potential for ' contaminated groundwater underlying the project site and adjoining gasoline station uses, vapor intrusion into proposed structures could occur. This is a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.65, impacts to persons at the project site as a result of vapor intrusion would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure MM 3.6-5 Conduct a Vapor Intrusion Investigation. Prior to issuance of building 1 permits, vapor intrusion investigations shall be conducted by a qualified Environmental Professional, in consultation with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) or other appropriate agency if applicable. Should the environmental professional determine that proposed buildings could be impacted by vapor intrusion, the Environmental Professional shall recommend specific design measures to be incorporated into the building design that would reduce these indoor air quality concentrations to below applicable regulatory thresholds. 1 can� Page 3-93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Heritage Paris Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality 3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality This section of the Draft EIR discusses the hydrologic and water quality setting of the proposed project and surrounding area. This section also evaluates the potential impacts that the proposed project will have on water resources. The discussion of hydrology and water quality issues within the proposed project area was based on a technical memorandum prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. in November 2013. The technical memorandum is included as Appendix F. Environmental Setting Regional Setting The climate of the Livermore-Amador Valley is characterized as Mediterranean, with cool 1 wet winters and warm dry summers. The average annual temperature of the area ranges from a low of 42 degrees (Fahrenheit) to a high of 73 degrees. The mean annual rainfall in project vicinity is approximately 17 inches (the majority of which falls between October 1 and April). Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the region. Severe, damaging rainstorms occur at a frequency of about once every three years. Surface Water The project site is located in the City of Dublin, within the western portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley hydrologic region. The project site is relatively flat, with on-site elevations ranging from approximately 375 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the western portion of the project site to 365 feet above msl in the eastern portion of the project site. Surface water generally flows from west to east. In an undeveloped setting, when rainfall intensities exceed the infiltration capacity of surface i soils, run-off flows over the ground surfaces toward established natural drainage channels. Stormwater runoff is then conveyed away from the area in creeks and streams. In a developed setting, an increased portion of the natural soils would be covered with ' impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, driveways, and roofs), increasing amounts and altering flow patterns of runoff. In developed portions of the City of Dublin, storm drainage is conveyed in underground pipes, channels, and to a lesser extent, swales. New development is required to install adequately-sized storrn drains, connected to the City's system, to accommodate increased ' runoff volumes. Stormwater drainage is managed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and all runoff in the vicinity is directed to regional storm drain facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Reservoirs/Dams There are 29 reservoirs/dams in Alameda County. The following reservoirs are located within 12 miles of the proposed project: CC/1�� Page 3-95 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality • Don Castro Reservoir is located approximately 9 miles to the east of the proposed project in Hayward. It is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for flood control, and by the East Bay Regional Park District as a recreational facility. • Lake Chabot Reservoir is located approximately nine miles west of the project area. It was completed in 1875 by damming San Lorenzo creek and served as the primary water source for the East Bay Area. • The Upper San Leandro Reservoir is located approximately 13 miles northwest of the project area. It was built by the East Bay Water Company in 1926 and is maintained by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. ' • The San Antonio Reservoir is located approximately 13 miles south-southeast of the project area. Built in 1964 by the City and County of San Francisco, it is , managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The reservoir captures local rain and runoff from the Alameda Watershed and contributes surface water supplies to the SFPUC Water System. • Lake de Valle is located approximately 14 miles southeast of the project area. De Valle Dam and Lake de Valle were built in 1968 as part of the State Water Project. It provides storage for the South Bay Aqueduct and flood control for Alameda Creek. The East Bay Regional Park District manages the Lake de Valle Regional Park, which is also a designated State Recreation Area. Groundwater Basin The proposed project is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which , contains a surface area of approximately 109 square miles. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin lies approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton, within a structural trough of the Diablo Range. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills (about 14 miles) and from the Livermore Upland north to the Orinda Upland (about three miles). Surface drainage features include Arroyo Valley, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo las Positas as principal streams, with Alamo Creek, South San Ramon Creek, and Tassajara Creek as minor streams. All streams converge on the west side of the basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley, and ultimately draining to the San Francisco Bay. Some geologic structures restrict the lateral movement of groundwater, but the general groundwater gradient is from east to west, towards Arroyo de la Laguna and from north to south along South San Ramon Creek and Arroyo de la Laguna. Elevations within the basin range from about 600 feet in the east, near the Altamont Hills, to about 280 feet in the southwest, where Arroyo de la Laguna flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin. The entire floor of the Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley overlie groundwater bearing materials. The materials are mostly continental deposits from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes. They include valley-fill materials, the Livermore , Page 3-96 C�Ii,'� k i Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Formation and the Tassajara Formation. Under most conditions, the valley fill and Livermore Formation yield adequate to large quantities of groundwater to all types of wells, with the larger supply wells being located in the Main Basin. The Main Basin is composed of Castle, Bernal, Amador, and Mocho sub-basins. ' Groundwater Quantity The groundwater resources in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin are managed by Zone 7, under authority from California Water Code Section 30000 (County Water District). Zone 7 routinely monitors groundwater within the Main Basin. Two independent methods are used to estimate groundwater storage: 1) Hydrologic Inventory; and 2) Nodal Groundwater Elevation. The Main Basin is estimated to have a total storage capacity of which approximately 126,000 acre feet are available for Zone 7 operational storage. Zone 7's goal is to maintain 128,000 acre feet of groundwater in storage at all times. The natural sustainable yield of the Main Basin is approximately 13,400 acre feet per year, which is ten to I I percent of the total estimated useable groundwater storage. Based on the sustainable yield value, the retailers within Zone 7 including the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) are permitted to pump 7,245 acre feet of water per year. Each retailer has an established "Groundwater Pumping Quota" (GPQ). Zone 7 pumps DSRSD's GPQ. Zone 7 pumps only water that has been previously recharged as part of its artificial recharge program using its surface water supplies. During high demands, groundwater is used to supplement surface water delivered via the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) and treated at one of the Zone 7's two surface water treatment facilities. Groundwater is also used when the SBA is out of service due to maintenance and improvements or when Zone 7's surface water treatment plants are operating under reduced capacity due to construction repairs, etc. Finally, Zone 7 uses its stored groundwater (both local and non-local) under emergency or drought conditions when there may be insufficient water supply available. Zone 7 also pumps groundwater out of the Main Basin during normal water years to help reduce salt loading in the Main Basin. To achieve additional salt removal, a demineralization facility has been in operation since 2009. Zone 7 plans to recharge 9,200 acre feet per year on average, which means that Zone 7 can pump an equivalent of 9,200 acre feet per year on average from the Main Basin. Groundwater Quality The Main Basin is characterized by relatively good quality groundwater that meets all state and federal drinking water standards. However, there has been a slow degradation of groundwater quality as evidenced by rising Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and hardness levels over the last few decades. To address this problem, Zone 7 developed a Salt Management Plan (SMP), which was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as a condition of the Master Waste Reuse Permit and incorporated into Zone 7's Groundwater Management Plan in 2005. 1 Con Page 3-97 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Zone 7 implements a wastewater and recycled water monitoring program as part of the Groundwater Management Plan. In 2009, 20 percent of the recycled water produced in the service area was applied over the Main Basin. Nitrates and salinity have historically been the primary water quality parameters of concern in recycled water, but nitrates have become less of a concern since 1995 when the City of Livermore, which along with DSRSD ' stopped nitrifying is effluent. In addition to recycled water application over the Main Basin, there are also approximately eighty septic tanks over the Main Basin that discharge their settled effluent but their use is not monitored. To further manage the quality of water in the Main Basin, Zone 7 also runs a Toxic Site Surveillance Program documenting and tracking sites across the groundwater basin that ' pose a potential threat to drinking water supplies. As part of its efforts to address salinity in the Main Basin, Zone 7 completed construction , of a wellhead demineralization facility in 2009. Employing a reverse osmosis membrane- based treatment system, this facility allows for the removal and export of concentrated minerals or salts from the Main Basin and the delivery of treated water with reduced TDS , and hardness levels to Zone Ts customers. Water Qualitx The quality of surface and groundwater at the proposed project area is affected by land uses within the entire watershed. Drainage from the project site affects the quality of water in Dublin Creek and San Francisco Bay. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated primarily by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (discussed below). Project Site Setting The project site is 6.6 acres and is covered with impervious surfaces (e.g. buildings and parking lots). The existing improvements are located approximately three and five feet below Donlon Way and generally slope from west to east. There is an existing storm drain system on-site, which collects the local drainage from the roofs and parking lot and conveys it to a 24 inch pipe located in the southeastern portion of the project site. This existing 24- inch pipe ultimately conveys the stormwater to a concrete line drainage channel located within Caltrans right-of-way between the southern property line and Interstate 580. The existing flow rate at the project site is 13.4 cubic feet per second (Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. 1 1/2413). Flooding ' According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA (Panel 06001 C0304G and Panel 06001 C0308G), portions of the project site are located within the boundaries of the 500-year flood zone (see Figure 3.7-1: FEMA Flood Zones). A 100-year flood zone is located adjacent to but entirely outside of the project boundary along Dublin Creek. Page 3-98 ccn'�" W_ ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water Act ' The principal law governing pollution of the nation's surface waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]). Originally enacted in 1948, it was amended in 1972 and has remained substantially the same since. The CWA consists of two major parts: provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction and regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers. The CWA authorizes the establishment of effluent standards on an ' industry basis. The CWA also requires states to adopt water quality standards that "consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for 1 such waters based upon such uses". National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System To achieve its objectives, the CWA is based on the concept that all discharges into the nation's waters are unlawful, unless specifically authorized by a permit. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402 of the CWA. Thus, industrial and municipal dischargers (point source discharges) must obtain NPDES permits from the appropriate RWQCB (i.e., the Central Valley region). The existing NPDES (Phase 1) stormwater program requires municipalities serving more than 1,000,000 persons to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit for any construction project larger than five acres. Proposed NPDES storrnwater regulations (Phase II) expand this existing national program ' to smaller municipalities with populations of 10,000 persons or more and construction sites that disturb more than one acre. For other dischargers, such as those affecting groundwater or from non-point sources, a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB. For specified situations, some permits may be waived and some discharge activities may be handled through being included in an existing General Permit. ' Construction activity includes any clearing, grading, stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of one acre of total land area or more. Construction activities disturbing less than one acre are still subject to this permit if the activity is part of a large common ' plan of development or if significant water quality impairment will result from the activity. The General Permit requires all dischargers whose construction activity disturbs one acre ' or more to: • Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent all construction pollutants ' from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters; and, 1 • Eliminate or reduce non-storrnwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States; and inspect all BMPs. G�11 WW AssocatM W_ Page 3-99 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Impaired Waterbodies CWA Section 303(d) and Califomia's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (described below) require the State to establish the beneficial uses of its State waters and to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d) establishes a total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is the maximum quantity of a particular contaminant that a water body can maintain without experiencing adverse effects, to guide the application of State water quality standards. Section 303(d) also requires the State to identify "impaired" streams (water bodies affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and to establish the TMDL for each stream. Federal Flood Insurance Program I Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts is to reduce the need for large , publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. FEMA administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development on floodplains. ' FEMA issues FIRMs for communities participating in the NFIP. FIRMs delineate flood hazard zones in the community. A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area within a floodplain having a one percent or greater chance of flood occurrence within any given year (commonly referred to as the 100 year flood zone). SFHAs are delineated on flood hazard boundary maps issued by FEMA. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 make flood insurance mandatory for most properties in SFHAs. For any changes within the 100-year flood zone, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) would need to be prepared. A CLOMR is FEMA's comment on the proposed project that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a , flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFE) or the SFHA. State , Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ' The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act acts in cooperation with the CWA to establish the Surface Water Resources Water Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB is divided into nine regions, each overseen by a RWQCB. The SWRCB, and thus each ' RWQCB, is responsible for protecting Califomia's surface waters and groundwater supplies. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act develops Basin Plans that designate the beneficial uses of Califomia's Hvers and groundwater basins. The Basin Plans also establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Basin Plans are updated every three years and provide the basis of determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. The Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act is also responsible for implementing CWA Sections 401-402 and 303(d) to SWRCB and RWQCBs. Page 3-100 CCn and Assocmm&h� Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates surface water and groundwater quality in San Francisco Bay, including the City of Dublin. The area under the RWQCB's jurisdiction comprises all of the San Francisco Bay segments extending to the mouth of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Winter Island near Pittsburg). In its efforts to protect surface waters and groundwaters of the San Francisco region, the RWQCB addresses region wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial update of a Water Qua lity Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan, 201 1) and adopts, monitors compliance with, and enforces waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits. The RWQCB's overall mission is to protect surface waters and groundwater in the Region. The Water Board carries out its mission by: Addressing Region-wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial Updating a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan); Preparing new or revised policies addressing Region-wide water quality concerns; Adopting, monitoring compliance with, and enforcing waste discharge requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; Providing recommendations to the State Water Board on financial assistance programs, proposals for water diversion, budget development, and other statewide programs and policies; ' . Coordinating with other public agencies that are concerned with water quality control; and Informing and involving the public on water quality issues. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP The SWPPP has two major objectives: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges, and 2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in both stormwater and in non-stormwater discharges. BMPs include activities, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices that reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non- stormwater discharges. BMPs include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage, leaks, waste disposal, and drainage from raw materials storage. BMP implementation must take into account changing weather conditions and construction activities, and various combinations of BMPs may be used over the life of the project to maintain compliance with the CWA. The General NPDES Permit gives the owner the discretion to determine the most economical, effective, and innovative BMPs to achieve the performance-based goals of the General NPDES Permit. 1 ,M Page 3-101 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality There are two categories of BMPs: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are the specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system, or would remove pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are activities, programs, and other nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from non-point sources to the drainage system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures. The issue of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff has been recognized by both federal and state agencies, and there has been a growing concern regarding activities that discharge water affecting California's surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of water are classified as either point source or non-point source discharges. A point source ' discharge usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable point. Regulated point sources include municipal wastewater, oil field wastewater, winery discharges, solid ' waste sites, and other industrial discharges. Point source discharge must be actively managed to protect the state's waters. A non-point source discharge usually is a waste emanating from diffused locations. As a result, specific sources of non-point source ' pollution may be difficult to identify, treat, or regulate. The goal is to reduce the adverse impact of non-point source discharges on water resources through better management of these activities. Non-point sources include drainage and percolation from a variety of activities such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, and storm runoff with the latter being the most common in the Dublin area. Local City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to hydrology and water quality. Environmental Resources Management- Conservation Element 7.2: Guiding Policy A: Maintain natural hydrologic systems. 7.2: Guiding Policy B: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. 7.2: Implementing Policy C: Enact and enforce erosion and sedimentation ordinance establishing performance standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. 7.2: Implementing Policy D: Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control. 7.2: Implementing Policy E: Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. 7.2: Implementing Policy F: Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. 7.2: Implementing Policy G: Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Program. Page 3-102 C:on and Assocatm k� Iii ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7,Water Agency Stream Management Master Plan For the past 40 years, stormwater has been conveyed primarily on channelized arroyos, many of them concrete, to convey storrnwater through the area as quickly as possible. In 2006, Zone 7 released the Final Stream Management Master Plan (Zone 7, 2006), which articulates a vision over the next three decades to create a flood-protection program that relies largely on using a future "chain of lakes," a series of mined-out gravel pits between Livermore and Pleasanton, to detain stormwater in the Valley. The stored water would be released downstream only after storms pass through the area — meaning arroyos can be kept in a more natural state than under the channelization method. Not only significantly less expensive when it comes to flood control, this technical approach also affords opportunities to: improve the water supply through groundwater recharge, ' enhance arroyo water quality and habitat, increase the connectivity of trails and recreational opportunities in the Valley, and promote public understanding of watersheds of through educational programs. Of the 45 conceptual projects identified in the Stream Management Master Plan, ten would ' remove or modify fish-passage barriers in Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. Others would restore natural stream flows, replace plants with native types, stabilize stream banks, create wetlands and other habitat for sensitive species, and install trails and educational kiosks near Valley arroyos. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program ' The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program which was started in 1991. This local government and community Program educates the public on how to keep businesses and homes from contributing to stormwater pollution, and also coordinates its activities with other pollution prevention programs, such as wastewater treatment plants, hazardous waste disposal, and water recycling. ' 3.8.3 Relevant Project Characteristics As shown in Figure 2-9: Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan and described in Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- 10-Year Stormwater Flows, the project site is divided into two drainage areas. These drainage areas will be maintained with the proposed improvements. Drainage Area I is 0.9 acres and it made up of the existing church and restaurant buildings. The total flow generated by Area I was estimated to be 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13). Total post development flow was estimated to be 3.4 cfs, for a net increase of 1.7 cfs. Area I discharges into an existing 27" storm drain main ' located in Dublin Boulevard, which has a full flow capacity of 17.0 cfs. At present, it is not known yet if there is sufficient capacity in this 27" storm drain to accommodate the additional flow. The project applicant plans to conduct a more details analysis as part of final design to determine if there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm drain main. If not, a portion of the runoff generated by Area I would be detained within a r,on lallndAsWcwtfth� Page 3-103 Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality planned bioretention area to ensure that post development flows do not exceed pre- development flows off site. Drainage Area 2 is 7.1 acres and includes the existing office buildings and parking lots. The total flow generated by Area 2 was estimated to be 11.7 cfs. Stormwater from Area 2 would be retained in one of two bio-retention ponds before being discharged into an existing 24" storm drain pipe, located in the southeast comer of the site. This pipe connects to an existing concrete lined channel (Dublin Creek) located within the Caltrans , right-of-way. The full flow capacity of the 24" outlet pipe was determined to be 12.4 cfs. The total post-development flows generated by Area 2 was determined to be 8.5 cfs, or a reduction of 3.2 cfs (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13). Table 3.7-I: Pre-and Post- 10-Year Stormwater Flows Pre-Stormwater Post-Stormwater ' Drainage Area Acres Flows(cfs) Flows(cfs) Net Change(cfs) Area 1 0.9 1.7 3.4 1.7 , Area 2 7.1 11.7 8.5 (3.2) Total 8.0 13.4 11.9 (1.5) Source: Carlson,Barbee&Gibson, 1 1/24/13 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ' Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guide lines, and agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; , • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- , existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the ' alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; ' • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned Stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; Page 3-104 Con k. Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality •i Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; • Place within a 100-year flood-hazards area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; and/or • Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Methodology Impacts evaluated in this section were assessed based on previously published reports by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Water Resources, and information from the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan, as well as a hydrology technical memorandum prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. in November 2013. ' Impacts to surface and groundwater quality were analyzed by reviewing existing groundwater and surface water quality reports that pertain to the project site; identifying existing on-site ground and surface waters, and evaluating existing and potential sources of water quality pollutants based on the types of land uses and operational activities that may occur at the project site. Additionally, the applicability of federal and state regulations, ordinances, and/or standards to surface and groundwater quality of the project site and subsequent receiving waters was assessed. ' Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow The proposed project is located more than 14 miles from the shore of the San Francisco ' Bay and approximately 32 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, there are no large water bodies in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to be affected by a tsunami or seiche. The project site and surrounding properties are also ' relatively flat and would not be subject to mudflows. Therefore, no impacts from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are anticipated to occur. Flooding Exposure/ Risk, Including the Failure of a Levee or Dam According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Dam Failure Inundation ' Maps the project site is not located within the limits of potential inundation zone from a catastrophic failure of the dam at Lake del Valle, which is located approximately 10.5 miles southeast of the project site (ABAG 2013). In addition, the State Division of Safety of ' Dams under the authority of the Department of Water Resources inspects this and other dams under its jurisdiction on an annual basis to confirm if each dam is safe, performing as intended and is not developing problems. Roughly a third of these inspections each year include in-depth instrumentation reviews of the dam surveillance network data. r:cn„' W Page 3-105 Heritage Park Draft EIR , Hydrology and Water Quality The Division also periodically reviews the stability of dams and their major appurtenances in light of improved design approaches and requirements, as well as new findings regarding ' earthquake hazards and hydrologic estimates in California. Based on the continued dam- safety compliance inspection conducted by the Division of Safety of Dams, the risk of flooding from catastrophic dam failure is considered low. Therefore, the proposed project ' would not experience flooding from failure of a levee or dam and would have no impact in this regard. Place Housing or Structures Within a 100-Year Flood-Hazards Area Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA (Panel 06001 C0304G and ' Panel 06001 C0308G), portions of the project site are located within the boundaries of the 500-year flood zone (see Figure 3.7-1: FEMA Flood Zones). Approximately 15,700 cubic ' yards of soil would be imported to the project site to elevate the grade on the north, east, and west parts of the project site, which would modify the current boundaries of the 500- year flood zone. , A 100-year flood zone is located adjacent to but entirely outside of the project boundary along Dublin Creek. The proposed project would not modify any portion of this 100-year flood zone. Because the proposed project would not alter or otherwise affect the existing boundaries of a 100-year flood zone, no impact would occur. Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements ' Impact 3.7-1 Construction-related activities resulting from implementation of the proposed project may result in the degradation of surface water quality, which is considered a less than significant impact. , Implementation of the proposed project would require construction and grading activities. During these activities, there will be the potential for surface water to carry sediment from , onsite erosion and small quantities of pollutants into the storm water system and local waterways including Dublin Creek, which is located south of the project site. Soil erosion , may occur along project boundaries during construction in areas where temporary soil storage is required. Small quantities of pollutants have the potential for entering the storm drainage system, thereby potentially degrading water quality. Construction of the proposed project would also require the use of gasoline and diesel powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air compressors. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating i grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances will be utilized during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade ' the water quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into the drainage system. Page 3-106 C�I1 mk� ' Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Implementation of the proposed project would result in an area of disturbance of more than one acre. To assure implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect short-term water quality, the proposed project must comply with NPDES permit requirements as defined under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act . This includes the ' preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which requires Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion, siltation, and contaminated runoff from construction sites. ' BMPs for storm water quality treatment are classified as structural and nonstructural. Structural measures may include bio-filters, wetlands, infiltration basins, or mechanical structures designed to remove pollutants from storm water. Non-structural measures such as street sweeping, public education, or hazardous substance recycling centers are preventive measures intended to control the source of pollutants. Typical BMPs included ' in a NPDES permit include: • Use of sand bags and temporary desiltation basins during project grading and ' construction during the rainy season (November through April) to prevent discharge of sediment-laden runoff into storm water facilities; ' • Installation of landscaping as soon as possible after completion of grading to reduce sediment transport during storms; • Hydroseeding of graded building pads if they are not built upon before the onset of ' the rainy season; • Incorporation of structural BMPs (e.g., grease traps, debris, screens, continuous ' deflection separators, oil/water separators, drain inlet inserts) into the project design to provide detention and filtering of contaminants in urban runoff from the developed site prior to discharge to storm water facilities; and ' . Stenciling of catch basins and other publicly visible flood control facilities with the phrase, "Don't Dump - Pollutes Our Creeks." ' Additionally, prior to construction grading, the project applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare the SWPPP, which addresses the measures that will be included in the project to minimize and control construction and post-construction runoff to the "maximum extent practicable." Moreover, project grading plans must conform to the drainage and erosion standards adopted by the City of Dublin and are subject to approval of the City of Dublin. The SWPPP will also be reviewed by the ' Zone 7 Water Agency to ensure adequacy and appropriateness of BMPs. Typical measures, or their equivalent, will be included in the SWPPP, which will be implemented to prevent storm water pollution and minimize potential sedimentation during construction. Restrict grading to dry season (April through October) or use BMPs for wet season erosion control; ' . Preclude non-storm water discharges to the storm water system; r:on dAs tf.kr- Page 3-107 Heritage Park Draft EIR , Hydrology and Water Quality • Perform monitoring of discharges to the storm water system; • Construction practices will include the use of stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks, street sweeping, use of erosion control devices, including damp sweeping, straw bales and/or silt fences, and storm drain inlet protection to ' minimize contamination from storm water runoff; • Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help erosion control during construction; and ' • Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has been completed. ' Compliance with NPDES permit requirements, as well as the City of Dublin's drainage and erosion standards, will ensure that this impact is less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. ' Deplete Groundwater Supplies and Groundwater Recharge Impact 3.7-2 The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to the , amount of available groundwater available, degrade groundwater quality, or decrease groundwater recharge in the project area. This ' is considered a less than significant impact The water source for the proposed project would rely on surface water supplies from the ' Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD purchases wholesale water from Zone 7, who in turn purchases 70 percent of its water from the State Water Project (SWP). The remainder of the Zone 7 , water is from groundwater aquifers through the Livermore-Amador Valley. As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project ' would result in a reduction in the water demand as compared to the existing commercial/office uses at the project site of 8,385 gallons per day (interior) and 18,281 gallons per day (exterior). In addition, the proposed project would increase the amount of ' pervious surfaces at the project site, which would increase the amount of groundwater recharge within the project site. Because the proposed project would result in an overall reduction in the amount of water use and increase the amount of pervious surfaces, the ' proposed project is not anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies and/or affect groundwater recharge over existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the groundwater basin. i Substantially Alter Existing Drainage Patterns As described in Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows, implementation of , the proposed project would decrease the net peak 10-year storm water flows from the project site from 13.4 cfs to 1 1.9 cfs, for a net reduction of 1.5 cfs. All stormwater would ' be detained on-site in one of three bioretention basins before being discharged into existing stormwater facilities. Because the post-development stormwater flows would be Page 3-108 CC►1 aWftsomMmk� Heritage Park Draft EIR Hydrology and Water Quality reduced and stormwater would flow into existing facilities, there would be no impact on existing drainage patterns of the site or area. wd C�/1"°"AnocwtftW Page 3-109 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � I it Legend ' FEMA Flood Zone:500-Year Flood Zone _ FEMA Flood Zone: 100-Year Flood Zone Project Site Boundary A i Apo- r� 4�b� t .1 Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2013) Heritage Park EIR ' . . . 0 FEMA Flood Zones CONSULTING A Company Figure 3.7-1 1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Land Use and Planning 3.8 Land Use and Planning This section of the Draft EIR examines the land use and planning impacts associated with proposed project. Specifically, this section analyzes the change in land use characteristics; analyzes potential conflicts between surrounding land uses, as well as the relationship of the proposed land use changes to relevant planning policies that guide land use decisions. Background information and analysis within this section is based on the Dub/in I///age Historic Area Specific Plan, the City of Dublin General Plan, and the City of Dublin Municipal Code. Existing Conditions Existing Land Uses The topography of the project site is generally flat and is currently developed with a two- story, 1 10,000 square foot wood frame office complex. The remainder of the project site is comprised of surface parking and landscaping including several large and small diameter trees. Existing conditions of the project site are shown in photographs in Figure 2-3a and Figure 2-3b: Photographs of the Project Site. Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel to the west; a church, restaurant, and gas station to the north; office space to the east across San Ramon Road; and Interstate 580 to the south. Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2-4: Surrounding Land Uses. General Plan Designations The City of Dublin General Plan (City of Dublin 20 10) identifies the general locations, density and extent of land available for housing, business, industry, natural resources protection, recreation, and other uses. The project site is designated Retail/Office. The following land use designations surround the project site: Medium/High Density Residential to the north; Retail/Office (RO) and Parks/Public Recreation (PPR) to the west; and Retail/Office (RO) to the east. Existing land use designations are shown in Figure 3.8-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations. Zoning According to the City of Dublin Zoning Map, the project site is zoned Planned Development (PD). The zoning map of the project site is shown in Figure 3.8-2: Existing Zoning Designations. Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan The project site is designated RO and zoned PD in the Dublin Vllage Hlstonc Area Specific Plan, consistent with the current General and Zoning Designations.. K—ey Ho,, �� dA—W-1' Page 3-1 1 1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Land Use and Planning Relevant Project Characteristics The proposed project includes a General Plan and Specific Plan amendment to change the General Plan land use designation for the residential portion of the project site from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, with the exception of thresholds added to consider compatibility with adjacent uses, and physical impacts on the environment from potential urban decay or blight (often characterized by property abandonment and/or desolate urban landscapes). For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse land use and planning impact if it would result in any of the following: • Change or intensify development within the project area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses • Physical division of an established community • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan Conflict with Applicable Conservation Plans The project site is developed and there are no habitat or natural community conservation plans in the project area and therefore, no impacts would occur. Create Land Use Incompatibilities or Physically Divide a Community Impact 3.8-1: Implementation of the proposed project would redevelop the project site from a commercial/office development to medium density residential and commercial/office use. Because the site is located within an urban setting with existing residential and commercial uses, the proposed project is not anticipated to create incompatibilities with adjacent land uses or physically divide an established community. This is considered a less than significant impact. Land use incompatibility can occur where differences exist among uses that are near each other. These incompatibilities may result from differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, traffic levels, hours of operation, and other factors. ►=/1 a meY-Ho,n Page 3-1 12 � "'d A-1-"` Heritage Park Draft FIR Land Use and Planning The project site is an infill redevelopment site located adjacent to existing urban development. Surrounding land uses include the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel to the west; a church, restaurant, and gas station to the north; office space to the east across San Ramon Road; and Interstate 580 to the south. The proposed project would be consistent with the design standards and guidelines in the Dublin I///age Historic Area Specific Plan and would provide a development that implements the overall vision for the Specific Plan area, which enhances the historic nature of the area and provides pedestrian connections to surrounding uses, Therefore, the proposed project would not create land use incompatibilities and/or physically divide a community. Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with goals and policy of the City of Dublin Genera/ P lan, nor the City of Dub/in Municipal Code. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. For the proposed residential portion of the project site, the City of Dublin General P lan and the Dublin I///age Historic Area Specific Plan will be amended to: I) Change the text to reflect the new General Plan/Specific Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential and 2) Change the General Plan Land Use Map and Specific Plan Land Use Map from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential for the residential portion of the project site (see Figure 3.8-3: Proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use Map). The zoning designation would remain Planned Development; however, the zoning text would be amended to include provisions and development regulations as they pertain to the respective Retail/Office and Medium Density Residential portions of the project site. With the adoption of the land use and zoning amendments, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Dublin General P lan. The proposed project's consistency with the City of Dublin General Plan is discussed in Table 3.8-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis. Consistency with policies related to environmental effects are addressed in each technical section of the Draft EIR. As demonstrated, the proposed project would not be in conflict with the applicable land use policies of the City of Dublin General Plan. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant, and no mitigation is required. �Z„and Associates.Inc. Page 3-113 Heritage Park Draft EIR Land Use and Planning Table 3.8-1: City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis City of Dublin General Plan Consistency Analysis Land Use Element 20 HousingAuailability Implementing Policy B – Designate site available for Consistent. The proposed project would redevelop residential development in the primary planning area the project site from commercial office to residential for medium to medium high density where site and office uses. The proposed residential uses would capability and access are suitable and where the be consistent with the surrounding residential uses higher density would be compatible with existing to the north of the project site across Dublin residential development nearby. Boulevard. Circulation and Scenic Highways Element 5.3.l Primary and Extended Planning Areas Implementing Policy 3 - Encourage higher densities Consistent. The project site is located approximately and mixed use developments near major transit lines 0.42 miles from the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART and transit transfer points as a means of encouraging Station. Additionally, the project site is located the use of public transit. This type of transit- within walking distance (less than 0.4-mile) of oriented development is especially encouraged near Wheels Bus Routes 503, 10, 3, and R along San the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and in the Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. Because the Transit-Oriented District of the Downtown Dublin project site is located within proximity to transit, Specific Plan area. residents and employees would be encouraged to utilize transit. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Implementing Policy 3. Community Design and Sustainability Element 10.7.3/, Site and Building Design Policy B - Encourage buildings with varied massing, Consistent The commercial/office building would heights, articulation techniques, and architectural and include building articulation that would ensure it signage treatments to ensure compatibility with would be compatible with adjacent existing adjacent uses, in commercial, office, industrial, and commercial uses and the proposed residential uses mixed use areas. to the south. The ground level of the building would have a wrap-around porch element, with low Policy J - Design inviting and attractive office sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis buildings that incorporate modern and work. A lobby entry at the center of the building contemporary architectural design elements and would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable design features that enrich the appearance of the roof. An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one gathering places, encourage people to use them, and side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second have attractive appearances from the public right-of- level of the commercial building would have gable way, in office areas. elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with these policies. i ZF,a m,e,.-Ho,� Page 3-1 14 l "—'°`-h Heritage Park Draft FIR Land Use and Planning Policy G - Encourage the diversity of garage Consistent. The single-family residential homes orientation and setbacks, architectural styles, building would be comprised of Craftsman and American materials, color and rooflines, and other design Farmhouse architectural styles. Architectural features, on all sides of all buildings in residential elements and details would include the use of front areas. and upstairs patios and the use of varying building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. Garages would generally be recessed from the front of each home. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy H - Orient buildings toward major Consistent. The proposed residential homes and thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and the proposed commercial/office building located gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and along Donlon Way would be oriented towards the identifiable entries where feasible in campus office street with sidewalks connecting with Dublin areas. Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 10.7.3.2. Landscaping and Natural Features Policy H - Preserve Mature trees and vegetation, Consistent. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal with special consideration given to the protection of Plan,the proposed project would remove 107 trees, groups of trees and associated under growths and 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. Of specimen trees. these Heritage trees, five of them are California black walnuts located on the western edge of Donlon Way. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36" box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. C��Wmly . . -d AS��,�In, Page 3-1 15 Heritage Park Draft EIR Land Use and Planning 10.8.8.Implementation Measures.,Land Use Pattems and Designs Implementation Measure A — Review new Consistent. The project site is located across the neighborhood design and layout for conformance street from Dublin Heritage Park and Museums, with the following standards: which is a ten acre park that includes historic buildings, lawns, a historic cemetery, and picnic areas. I. Design neighborhoods so that a park, civic, The project site is also located within a '/2 mile of semi-public, or publicly-accessible passive Mape Memorial Park, which contains recreational use space, at least '/2 acre in size, lies within facilities including play equipment and sand volleyball a '/4 mile walk distance of 75 percent of courts. planned and existing residences and commercial businesses. The space can be either a public park or a privately-owned as long as it is accessible to the general public. 2. Design neighborhoods so that a park, civic, semi-public or publicly accessible recreational facility at least one acre in size with either indoor or outdoor recreational amenities lies within a '/2 mile walk distance of 75 percent of planned and existing residences and commercial businesses. Recreational facilities must include some physical improvements and may include "tot lots," swimming pools, sports fields, community buildings, or recreation centers, or can be any public park. The recreational facility can either be a public park or privately owned, as long as it is accessible to the general public. It can be a facility that charges a fee for use. Page 3-I 6 iZ n K—ey-Horn. ntl Associates.Inc 1 Legend _ Parks/Public Recreation Medium-High Density Residential _ Retail/Office ® Business Park/Industrial _ Downtown Dublin -Transit-Oriented District _ Downtown Dublin- Retail District p Project Site Boundary € 1 .f 1 t t F�A. 1 1 1 Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014) Heritage Paris EIR 1 FBF Existing General Plan Land Use Designations 0 CONSULTING A+Company Figure 3.8-1 Legend Planned Development(PD) _ Retail Commercial (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) Commercial Office (C-O) _ Downtown Dublin Zoning District(DDZP) _ Multi-Family Residential (R-M) Agriculture (A) Project Site Boundary 1, i~ l _i t i 1 a x e ,. ,q.;.. e R dT ax � } 1 c Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014) Heritage Park EIR 0' . . . Existing Zoning Designations CONSULTING A`_ Company Figure 3.8-2 Legend Parks/Public Recreation 'IT"'W Medium-High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Retail/Office - Business Park/industrial r Downtown Dublin-Transit-Oriented District Downtown Dublin-Retail District Project Site Boundary w e _� ., .. � e■ve' .>_ .. Y 1' • r y .+ • • } Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014) Heritage Park EIR V.1.5 1.� 0 Proposed General Plan and Specifc Plan Land Use Map CONSULTING AEI,. cumpdny Figure 3.8-3 Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise 3.9 Noise This section addresses potential noise impacts from the construction (including demolition), traffic, and operations that could occur with the proposed project. Data used to prepare this analysis were drawn from the City of Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin Municipal Code, and the Heritage Park Environmental Noise Study, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates (dated July 18, 2013). Environmental Setting Noise Scales and Definitions Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In general, a I dB change in the sound pressure levels of a given sound is detectable only under laboratory conditions. A 3 dB change in sound pressure level is considered a ''just detectable'' difference in most situations. A 5 dB change is readily noticeable and a 10 dB change is considered a doubling (or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that, generally speaking, a 3 dBA increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume; or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed. For each doubling of distance from a point noise source (a stationary source, such as a loudspeaker or loading dock), the sound level will decrease by 6 dBA. In other words, if a person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, sound levels will drop approximately 6 dBA. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a roadway, noise levels are reduced by 3 to 4.5 dBA, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; 20 dBA higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time; refer to Table 3.9-1: Noise Descriptors. ►.��and Associates.Inc. Page 3-I 17 Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise Table 3.9-I: Noise Descriptors Term Definition Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measured sound to a reference pressure 20 micro ascals . A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts for the fact that the region of highest sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000 and 4,000 cycles per second hertz Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level. Maximum Sound Level (LR,ax) The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. Minimum Sound Level (L,,,,,) The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. Community Noise Equivalent Level A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that (CNEL) differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments are +5 dBA for the evening, 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and +10 dBA for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Day/Night Average (Ld,) The Ldp is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq. The Ld, is calculated by averaging the Leq's for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the "sleeping hours" (defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), by 10 dBA to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. Exceedance Level (L,) The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% (Loi, Lio, Lso, 1_90, respectively) of the time during the measurement period. Source:Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control 1979. Mobile and Stationary Noise Sources Both mobile and stationary noise sources contribute to the existing noise levels within the project vicinity. The primary noise sources in the project vicinity include commercial/retail uses, car and truck traffic with high volumes of traffic along Interstate 580 (1-580), and noise from adjacent local roadways. Traffic along these roadways generates substantial noise levels at roadside receptors. In addition, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is located approximately 2,228 feet east of the project boundary. The station is located within the median of 1-580 and any associated noise is generally masked by freeway traffic noise which is just audible from the eastern boundary of the project site. The Heritage Park and Museums and a dog kennel are located to the west of the project site. Stationary noise sources include the existing on-site office complex, activities associated with the surrounding commercial/retail and residential uses, and recreational uses at the Heritage Park and Museums located to the west. Although a portion of the project site is Page 3-1 18 lh � -d'q=�°`t-he Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise occupied, little activity occurs within the site. Existing on-site stationary source noise is limited compared to the surrounding areas. The primary stationary noise sources in the project vicinity occur from the adjacent commercial areas and include parking lot noise, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. As described above, Heritage Park and Museums is located west of the project site, which includes outdoor recreational/instructional space. Stationary noise from use of the outdoor space at the Heritage Park and Museums is limited to infrequent events. Ambient Noise Levels In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels at the project site and vicinity, Charles M. Salter Associates conducted long-term noise measurements at the project site between June 25 and June 28, 2013; refer to Table 3.9-2: Noise Measurements. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. Noise monitors were attached to utility poles at a height of 12 feet above grade and recorded noise levels for approximately 72 hours. The results of the field measurements are indicated in Appendix G (Noise Data). Existing measured noise levels range from approximately 66 to 74 dBA Leq. Table 3.9-2: Noise Measurements Site No. Location Le (dBA) Ldn (dBA) I Southern portion of on-site office complex parking lot, 66.0 70.0 near westbound Interstate 580 on-ramp. 2 Eastern portion of on-site office complex parking lot, 71.0 72.0 near San Ramon Road. 3 Near commercial use located to the north of the 74.0 73.0 project site, adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. Source:Charles M.Salter Associates,June 25 to June 28,2013. Sensitive Receptors Land uses that are considered sensitive receptors to noise include residential areas, schools, hospitals, churches, recreational areas, and transient lodging. Residential areas are also considered particularly sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours. Several multi-family units are located approximately 210 feet north of the project site along Dublin Boulevard, and two single-family residences are located approximately 100 feet to the southwest along Donlon Way. The Heritage Park and Museums site is located approximately 105 feet to the west of the project site. The Church of Christ is located approximately 95 feet north of the project site along Dublin Boulevard, and the Dublin Cemetery is located approximately 280 feet to the west along Donlon Way. ► -d Associates.Inc Page 3-1 Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise Existing Regulatory Setting State of California Guidelines The State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) /Noise Element Guidelines include recommended interior and exterior level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA CNEL. According to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines, single-family homes are considered to be ''normally acceptable" in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and "conditionally acceptable'' up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are "normally acceptable" up to 65 CNEL and ''conditionally acceptable'' up to 70 CNEL. The State indicates that locating residential units, parks, and institutions (such as churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals) in areas where exterior ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL is undesirable. The OPR recommendations also note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum levels cited may be appropriate. As an example, the standards for quiet suburban and rural communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower existing outdoor noise levels as compared with urban environments. In addition, Title 25, Section 1092 of the Califomia Code of Regulations, sets forth requirements for the insulation of multiple-family residential dwelling units from excessive and potentially harmful noise. Whenever multiple-family residential dwelling units are proposed in areas with excessive noise exposure, the developer must incorporate construction features into the building's design that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. Local City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of the receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria provide the basis for decisions on location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise mitigation requirements. Table 3.9-3: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments shows the noise standards for the City. As indicated, the normally acceptable exterior noise level for the City of Dublin is 60 CNEL or less for noise- sensitive residential land uses and parks, and 70 dBA or less for retail, commercial, office, and industrial land uses. Noise levels up to 70 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable for most noise sensitive land uses. The following policies in the City of Dublin General /fan are applicable to noise in the project vicinity: Page 3-120 �stn-d'ASS{oove bx Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise Guiding Policy A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 3.10-2: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Table 3.9-3: City of Dublin —Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Corn unity Noise osure Ldn or CNEL, dBA Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acce table Una table Unacce table Residential 60 or less 61-70 71-75 Over 75 Motels, Hotels 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 Schools, Churches, Nursing Homes 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 Neighborhood Parks 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 Office, Retail, Commercial 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 -- Ldn = Day night average; NA = not applicable. Notes: NormallyAccepttable: Specified land use is satisfactory,based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction,without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning,will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable: New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed,a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise-insulation features must be included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source:City of Dublin, City of Dub/in Genera/Plan,adopted February 1 11 1985,updated January 19,2010. • Implementing Policy F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant. • Implementing Policy H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any habitable room) as required by State law. Consistent with the Noise Element of the City of Dub/in Genera/ Plan, the normally acceptable outdoor noise exposure standard for residential sites is 60 dBA or less. Project designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise barriers, or construction modifications. City of Dublin Municipal Code The City's Municipal Code includes standards pertaining to noise control within the City. Municipal Code Section 2.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. Section 8.36.060(C) (3) states that for lots less than 5,000 square feet, mechanical equipment that generates noise (i.e., swimming pool, spa, and air conditioning equipment) on the property shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. For lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a i K m,eY o Page 3-12 Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise required setback as allowed by this subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. Relevant Project Characteristics The proposed project includes an I I-foot noise barrier along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site bordering Interstate 580 and San Ramon Road. The sound wall would continue in the northeastern portion of the project site between Lots #23 through #26. A five foot sound wall would be constructed along the northern border of the project site between Lots #19 through #22 and a parking lot located north of the project site. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; Expose persons to, or generate, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; E Substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; r Substantially temporarily or periodically increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; and For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Noise and Vibration Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project may result in short-term construction-related noise at nearby noise sensitive land uses. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Construction activities have a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a period of several months. Groundborne noise as well as other types of construction- related noise impacts may occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the highest levels of noise. Generally, site preparation has the shortest duration of all construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and soils Page 3-122 PZn K1 .y H°, \ nd Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise compaction, and demolition of existing buildings and facilities. High groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can occur during this phase by the operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, and other heavy-duty construction equipment. Noise from construction activities is generated by the following primary sources: (1) the transport of workers and equipment to and from construction sites, (2) truck trips transporting cut/fill; and (3) the noise related to active construction equipment. These noise sources can be a nuisance to local residents and businesses or unbearable to sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, day care facilities, etc.). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has compiled data regarding noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and typical construction activities. These noise levels would decrease rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Construction noise can be created by the operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, scrapers, and other heavy-duty construction equipment. Table 3.9-4: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment, describes the anticipated construction equipment noise levels and is based on the quantity, type, and Acoustical Use Factor for each equipment type that would be used. Table 3.9-4: Maximum Nose Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Acoustical Use Factor' [!�(IBA)50 Feet Type of Equipment (percent) Crane 16 81 Dozer 40 82 Excavator 40 81 Generator 50 81 Grader 40 85 Other Equipment(> five horse power) 50 85 Paver 50 77 Pile Driver(impact) 20 101 Pile Driver(sonic) 20 96 Roller 20 80 Tractor 40 84 Truck 40 80 Welder 40 73 Note: I. Acoustical use factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction o eration. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (4HWA-HEP-05- 054),Janua 2006. Operating cycles for construction equipment used during these phases may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, P�Z^K-I.Y-)IM ►� and Associates.Inc. Page 3-I Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). These noise level estimates take into account the distance to the receptor, attenuation from molecular absorption, and anomalous excess attenuation. Construction noise impacts generally occur when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, during noise sensitive times of the day, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate significant amounts of noise during demolition, grading and construction operations. During these construction phases, adjacent sensitive receptors could be exposed to sporadic high noise levels associated with construction equipment (as a result of power tools, jack-hammers, truck noise, etc.); refer to Table 3.9-4: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. The closest construction activities could occur to a noise sensitive receptor is approximately 75 feet from the Church of Christ located to the north of the project site. The majority of the construction would occur at distances greater than 75 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors and would not be expected to interfere with normal recreational, institutional, or commercial activities in the project area. It is anticipated that construction traffic would access the potential construction sites within the project site from several major roadways, including Dublin Road, San Ramon Road, as well as from collector streets such as Donlon Way. As stated above, various sensitive receptors exist in the project vicinity, and could be exposed to excessive noise levels from construction vehicles along the surrounding roadways. The proposed project would be subject to compliance with the implementing policies of the Noise Element of the City ofDub&7 Genera/Flan, and Municipal Code; however the Municipal Code does not provide thresholds for construction activities. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would reduce construction noise associated with the proposed project by limiting construction to the less noise sensitive periods of the day and ensuring that proper operating procedures are followed during construction so that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise and vibration. Therefore, following compliance with City standards and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: MM 3.9-1 Implement Short-Term Construction Best Management Noise Practices Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects: All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no Page 3-124 6. -d';ssa`w- Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust. • The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. • Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. • A qualified ''Noise Disturbance Coordinator' shall be designated amongst the construction crew whom shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department. • Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers), • Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways (San Ramon Road, and Interstate 580). Construction trucks should, to the extent practical, avoid the weekday and Saturday a.m. and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Exposure to Short-term Construction-Related Vibration Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project could result in short-term construction-related vibration that could result in vibration impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during grading and construction activities. This is considered a less than significant impact. Project construction can generate varying degrees of ground-bome vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity ►�„and Associates.Inc. Page 3-125 Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise of the construction activities often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground- bome vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The vibration produced by construction equipment, is illustrated in Table 3.9-5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment. Table 3.9-5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle Equipment velocity at 25 feet velocity at 75 feet Cinches/second inches/second Large bulldozer 0.089 0.017 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.015 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001 Auger/drill rigs 0.089 0.017 Jackhammer 0.035 0.007 —Vibratory hammer 0.035 0.007 Vibratory compactor/roller 0.003 0.001 Notes: I. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. Table 12-2. 2. Calculated using the following formula: PPV eQ'P= PPV-,x(25/D)" where: PPV (equip) =the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Obration Impact Assessment Guidelines D=the distance from the equipment to the receiver Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines,May 2006. Ground-bome vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 3.9-5: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch-per-second peak particle velocity Page 3-126 lh F and'As-a;e_,,� Heritage Park Daft EIR Noise (PPV) at 25 feet from the source of activity. The closest structures to the project site are the nearby churches (i.e., Old St. Raymond's Church along Donlon Way and the Church of Christ along Dublin Boulevard) which are located over 75 feet from the nearest construction activity areas. With regard to the proposed project, ground-bome vibration would be generated primarily during site clearing and grading activities on-site and by off- site haul-truck travel. At 75 feet from the source of activity, vibration it range from 0.001 to 0.017 inch-per-second PPV. Therefore, as each of these values is below the 0.2 inch-per-second PPV significance threshold, and the nearest structures are located over 75 feet away from construction activity areas, the vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. Exposure to Long-Term Stationary Noise Impact 3.10-3: Sensitive receptors could be exposed to noise levels in excess of allowable City noise standards. However, project design features will be included as part of project construction which will reduce noise levels to be consistent with and/or lower than City noise standards. This is considered a less than significant impact. The proposed project would result in minimal long-term stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, which consist of residential, institutional, and park uses adjacent to the project site. Typical stationary noise sources associated with the proposed land uses on the project site (single family residential and commercial/office) include parking lot noise, HVAC systems, and noise associated with residential uses, including outdoor mechanical equipment, audible noise from domestic animals and outdoor activities. The proposed on-site uses would be required to comply with the City's noise standards established in the City of Dublin Municipal Code. The following discusses potential stationary noise impacts associated with the project. Delivery Trucks and Parking Areas Typically, a medium 2-axle truck used to make deliveries can generate a maximum noise level of 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. These are levels generated by a truck that is operated by an experienced "reasonable'' driver with typically applied accelerations. Higher noise levels may be generated by the excessive application of power. Lower levels may be achieved, but would not be considered representative of a nominal truck operation. The residential uses located in the northeastern portion of the project site would be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest commercial use. Noise from delivery trucks on this commercial property could expose the residents on the project site to excessive noise levels above City standards (60 dBA for exterior, 45 dBA for interior). Noise associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale; refer to Table 3.9-6, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up and car pass- bys may be an annoyance to the adjacent residential uses on-site. W M„Y iey No r , d Associates.Inc Page 3-127 Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise Table 3.9-6: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Source dBA Le Car door slamming 63 Car starting 60 Car idling 61 Source: RBF Consulting,2013. The commercial uses to the north of the project site include parking areas as close as 50 feet from the proposed residential uses on the project site. Most of the noise generated in the parking area would be at a distance of 50 feet from the nearest sensitive on-site residential use. The proposed project includes five-foot and I I-foot noise barriers surrounding the exteriors of the residential portion of the project site to reduce exterior noise levels from adjacent uses and traffic noise at on-site sensitive receptors to below City standards (60 dBA) (Charles Salter and Associates 2013) In addition, the proposed project will include windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 28 to ensure interior noise levels are below the City's 45 dBA CNEL interior standard. Construction of the sound wall and installation of STC-compatible windows will ensure that stationary noise impacts from delivery trucks would be less than significant. Mechanical Equipment The uses surrounding the project site require the use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units (HVAC). HVAC systems typically result in noise levels that average between 40 and 50 dBA Leci at 50 feet from the equipment. As the future residential uses on the project site would be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest surrounding use, and further from the closest potential location of the HVAC equipment, potential noise levels would be below the City's limits of 60 dBA for residential uses (Noise Element of the City of Dub/in Genera/Plan). As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Impacts to On-Site Receptors The proposed project would place sensitive receptors (i.e., residential and commercial uses) within 330 feet of the 1-580 freeway. According to the noise study prepared for the project, noise levels would be approximately 67 dB at the residential yards along the edge of the project site (Charles M. Salter and Associates 2013). To reduce noise levels within the City's residential standards of 60 dB, the proposed project would construct an I I-foot barrier along the southern and eastern perimeter of the project site. This barrier would be continuous from grade to top, have no cracks or gaps, and have a minimum surface density of three pounds per square foot (e.g. one-inch thick plywood, CMU) (Salter,July 18, 2013). Additionally, to reduce interior (i.e., residential and commercial) noise levels to the City's 45 dBA standard, windows with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) ranging from 28 to 38 Paoe 3-128 ►.I11in1e}`"°`" b antl Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Noise would be installed (see Figure 3.9-1: Proposed Noise Reduction Measures). With construction of the sound wall and STC-compliant windows, on-site sensitive receptors would not be exposed to excessive noise and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Exposure to Long-Term Mobile Noise Impact 3.9-4: Development of the proposed project would not permanently increase noise levels from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) in the project area, and would not expose persons to excessive airport- related noise. This is considered a less than significant impact. In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project site. According to the trip generation prepared for the proposed project, the existing land use (Commercial/Office) on the project site generates approximately 1,41 1 daily trips. The proposed project's land uses (Medium Density Residential and General Office) would generate approximately 81 1 daily trips. Therefore, there would be an overall reduction of 600 daily trips and an associated reduction in traffic noise levels as compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, neither a public nor private airport is located within two miles of the project site; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. P�Z„Ki ;l y Hw b �dA moire,h Page 3-129 rvp�.y,p..-..,. �'^'.:1'F�""-`... +-•v,•°'Z..•••,,.}; .a w.._.»..1 ��P�:iu<.11,6,1tTYAY,:^YYLK LA.JVi,31i; NOTE: NOISE BARRIERS TO BE LOCATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THEY ARE CURRENTLY SHOWN ON ADJACENT PROPERTY TO CLARIFY THEIR LOCATION. - m Gil I� d1 6 c,F i ` , LL Imo_ 0 0 1 = STC 38 ® = 11' HIGH NOISE BARRIER ' = STC 35 ® = 5' HIGH NOISE BARRIER o = STC 32 = STC 28 C ID CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. ' - °^-- -- FOR ACOUSTICAL DESIGN INFORMATION ONLY ' Note:STC=Sound Transmission Class Source:Charles M Salter Associates,Inc.(2014) Heritage Park EIR 0 Proposed Noise Reduction Measures CONSULTING A2=' COmpjn," Figure 3.9- Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities 3.10 Public Services and Utilities This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on public services and facilities and services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, libraries, parks/recreation facilities, stormwater drainage, potable water, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and other public utilities. Information in this section is derived primarily from the proposed project, as well as personal communication with service providers. Environmental Setting Fire Protection The proposed project would be served by the Alameda County Fire Department (hereinafter "ACFD''), which provides fire protection and suppression services under contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF currently consists of 36 line personnel. ACDF has 28 fire stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 16 is located at 7494 Donohue Drive; Station No. 17 is located at 6200 Madigan Avenue; and Station No. 18 is located at 4800 Fallon Road. • Station No. 16 houses one engine company, a patrol and a water tender, and a patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin. • Station No. 17 provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin and would provide initial response to the project area. This station houses one engine and one truck company. ■ Station No. 18 provides the primary response for the eastern most portions of Dublin. This station includes one engine company and one bulldozer. Law Enforcement The proposed project would be served by the City of Dublin Police Department. Police services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract to the Alameda County Sheriffs Office. As of June 2013, the City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel (Personal Communication with Lieutenant Nate Schmidt, Alameda County Sherrfff; Department/City of Dublin Police Department, June 5, 2013). Police Services are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff personnel located at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Plaza. Services provided include uniformed police officers patrolling the City in marked vehicles, criminal investigations, crime prevention, drug enforcement prevention education programs, and special investigation officers responsible for narcotic and vice suppression. Response times to various places in the City can vary depending on the time of day and the available units. The average response time to a life- or-death emergency averages approximately 3.5 to five minutes. For non-emergencies, the response time is typically 15 minutes. Dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at the Sheriffs Office facilities located in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward. Dublin police also enforce city ordinances and state laws within the limits of the City of Dublin. ZF,K, IeY-H, Page 3-131 rid Assoaat-hC Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Schools The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides public education in the City of Dublin and the surrounding area (including the proposed project area). The DUSD includes five elementary schools, one K-8 school, one middle school, a comprehensive high school, a continuation high school, and a K-3 parent participation program. The elementary schools all feature before and after school child care. The proposed project would be served by Dublin Elementary School, Wells Middle School and Dublin High School. Primary and secondary school facilities, 20 12-20 13 student enrollment, and the school's optimum capacity are identified in Table 3.10-1: Optimum Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site, Table 3.10-I: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site [Dublin de Level and School Student Enrollment in me 2012-2013 Optimum Capacity Excess Capacity mentary 675 755 80 Middle School Wells 802 1,063 261 High School Dublin HS 1,864 2 Source: Dublin Unified School Distnct,2013. For planning purposes, a school district's projected student generation rates are based on dwelling units. Student generation rates are the average number of students residing in a home. It is also an indicator of the number of students that will come from new housing developments. According to the Dublin Unified School District's Demographic Study and Facilities P lan, 2011-2012, each new single-family home (large and medium lot single family home) generates an average of 0.75 K-12 students per home; medi um density housing including single family residential with lots less than 4,000 square feet generates an average of 0.525 K-12 students per home; medium-high density attached housing (otherwise known as "townhomes'') generate an average 0.295 K-12 students per home; and a new high density residential (multifamily housing development) generates an average of 0.125 K-12 students per unit (DUSD 2012). Libraries The Dublin Public Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, and is a partnership between the City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library. The City of Dublin owns the library building and contracts with Alameda County for library services. The Dublin Public Library contains a collection of 145,700 materials including books, DVDs, and audio books, newspapers, and magazines funded with $1.3 million dollars given to the Library by the City of Dublin. Page 3-132 == nv 1-HOm V Associates Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities The Alameda County Library provides library services from ten branch libraries in the cities of Albany, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union City, and the unincorporated communities of Castro Valley and San Lorenzo. The Alameda County Library is funded primarily by local property taxes, with additional revenue from State grants and contracts with cities for additional open hours and services. Parks/Recreation Facilities The City of Dublin's current park system includes thirteen parks and two open space areas. The City's Parks and Community Services Department manages park planning and development, and the Public Works Department coordinates park maintenance. The nearest City parks to the project site include: Dublin Heritage Park and Museums —The Dublin Heritage Park and Museums is a ten acre park located across Donlon Way that includes historic buildings, lawns, a historic cemetery, and picnic areas. Mape Memorial Park — Mape Memorial Park is located between San Sabana and Calle Verde streets, off of Mape Way north of the project site. The park contains barbeque grills, drinking fountains, picnic tables, play equipment, sand volleyball courts, and walkways/trails. The City's existing trail network consists of bikeways located along Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, San Ramon Road, Alamo Creek, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Creek and Dougherty Road, a public local trail along Martin Canyon Creek, and a regional trail link along the Iron Horse Trail. Stormwater Drainage The City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's storm drain pipelines that are located within the public streets. The Alameda County Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7) owns and operates regional storm drain facilities that collects runoff from the City. Existing storm drain facilities are located within the project site, including a 24-inch storm drain pipe that discharges into a hardened channel to the south of the project site. Water The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD has provided drinking water to more than 60,000 people in Dublin since March 1961 and in Dougherty Valley since May 2000. In addition to potable water, DSRSD also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family residential, and institutional irrigation uses with the DSRSD potable water service area. The City of Dublin also has Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation (refer to the Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.88). DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan Ounei 201 1) (here e tier ''DSRSD aW20P0. includes a projection of future potable a p�ZF,jm,ey.„wn Page 3-133 � d Associates.1W. Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities This projection is shown in Table 3.10-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type. Table 3.10-2: DSRSD Current and Projected Water Meter Connections by Customer Type Demand Source 2010' 20152 2020 2025 2030 2035 Potable Water Residential (Total DRSD 15,661 18,397 23,598 25,451 26,553 26,970 Service Area)3 Commercial 1,218 I,982 2,166 2,4 15 2,527 2,569 Landscape Irrigation' 686 1,120 1,338 1,504 1,587 1,613 Institutional/Governmental5 106 232 274 304 307 311 Potable Water Subtotal 17,671 21,731 27,375 29,674 30,973 31,463 Recycled Water 283 452 732 860 885 910 Total 17,954 22,183 28,108 30,534 31,858 32,373 Notes: I. DSRSD water accounts as of December 31,2010. 2. DSRSD land use projections as of March 201 1, 3. Future residential dwelling units based on the sum ofthe residential units anticipated for individual projects and subdivisions per the land use projections and anticipated development scheduled as provided by the city of Dublin and individual developers. 4. Future projections for number of commercial,school,and imgation connections based on current density of those connections applied to future projected acreage for those land uses. 5. Future jail connections assumed to remain the same as existing jail connections Source:Dublin San Ramon Services Dist id 2010 Urban Water Mana ement Plan 201 DSRSD is responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated growth in demand, in which it is planned to use a combination of potable and recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources to meet demand. The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. DSRSD has a contract with Zone 7 which establishes the obligations between the parties to meet demand in the DSRSD service area. Under the contract, DSRSD is obligated to purchase all of the treated water it requires from Zone 7, unless Zone 7 is unable to deliver sufficient water. If Zone 7 is unable for a period of time to deliver sufficient water to satisfy DSRSD's needs, DSRSD is permitted to acquire water from other sources during the period that Zone 7 has insufficient water. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet treated and untreated (i.e. raw surface water) demands. Zone 7's water supplies consist of imported surface water and local runoff. Zone 7 conducts a periodic review of its water supply reliability. The most recent review was completed in July 2011. The sustainability and reliability of Zone 7's existing water supply system is achieved first by having sufficient long term supplies to meet demands and then by storing surplus water in wet years for use in dry years; it is heavily dependent on having enough wet years to balance the dry years. This balance between wet and dry years is evaluated by comparing projected yields from existing water supplies over a wide range Page 3-134 `=�,K-1.,.14— d Associates.I-. Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities of historic hydrology to make sure that Zone 7 can meet 100 percent of its treated water customer water supply needs during: an average water year, the worst single dry year from the historic record that represents the lowest yield from all available supplies; and multiple dry water ears from the historic record. Traditionally, if the projected yields over a long range of hydrology can be shown to meet a future demand every year, then the system is called sustainable for that level of demand. In general, if long-term average yields from existing water supplies are less than projected water demands, then over time, the storage reserves needed to meet reliability goals will erode and the system is not sustainable. Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge connection and other fees on new development within their service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission, and on-going system water maintenance and improvements. Sewer/Wastewater DSRSD is also the purveyor of wastewater collection services in the City of Dublin and a portion south San Ramon and Pleasanton. DSRSD wastewater collection system includes over 170 miles of sanitary sewers ranging from six to 42 inches in diameter that are from five to over 40 years old. Disposal of treated wastewater is under the jurisdiction of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Authority (LAVWMA). Wastewater collected from the DSRSD service area travels by gravity to the DSRSD wastewater treatment plant, which is located near the southeast corner of Interstate 580 and Interstate 680 in the City of Pleasanton. The plant has an average dry-weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 17.0 million gallons per day (mgd). At projected buildout, the secondary facilities will have an ADWF capacity of 20.7 mgd; 10.4 mgd of this influent is projected to originate from the DSRSD service area. The remaining 10.3 mgd of influent is projected to originate from Pleasanton, which is treated by DSRSD by contract. Disposal of treated effluent from DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton is the responsibility of the LAVWMA. LAVWMA exports secondary treated wastewater to the East Bay Discharges Authority interceptor pipeline for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay via a deepwater outfall. LAVWMA facilities are designed to export a maximum flow of 41.2 mgd during wet weather events. DSRSD currently charges wastewater connection and other fees on all new development within the District's service area and would require the developer to enter into a planning agreement with the District to cover wastewater collection and wastewater treatment. Fees are used for construction of planned wastewater treatment and collection system capital improvements, as well as on-going wastewater system maintenance. Solid Waste Management Coordination of the solid waste management activities in Alameda County is the joint responsibility of the County's Waste Management Authority and local jurisdictions. The City of Dublin currently contracts with Amador Valley Industries (AVI), a private company for residential and commercial garbage collection within the City limits. The City of Dublin i 2FJ Kimsey Ho Page 3-135 � and Associates.Inc Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities also has an aggressive and comprehensive recycling program and collects both recycling and organics. All single-family residences are provided with recycling containers. In addition, free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to garbage service. In regards to construction and demolition debris, the City requires all construction and demolition projects to recycle at least 50-percent of waste generated on a job site. Solid waste generated within the project site would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill. The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards. The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or 26.3 percent), and the remaining estimated capacity is at 45,720,000 cubic yards (or 73.7 percent). The estimated closure date of this landfill is January 2029. Electricity and Natural Gas Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to all or part of 47 counties in California, and provides natural gas to all or part of 39 counties in California, constituting most of the northern and central portions of the state. PG&E provides electricity and natural gas service to the City of Dublin. PG&E charges connection and user fees for all new development, in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural gas service based on use. Electricity and gas services are currently offered in the project vicinity. Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, entitled ''Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings," specifies requirements to achieve the State's minimum energy efficiency standards. The standards apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating and lighting. Compliance with these standards is verified and enforced through the local building permit process. Projects that apply for a building permit on or after January 1, 2010, must comply with the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards. In addition, the California Energy Commissions' EnergyAware P/arming Guide is available as a reference tool to assist in project planning. Regulatory Setting State Schools School Facilities Act of 1998 The School Facilities Act of 1998 (also known as Senate Bill [SB] 50), provides state funding for new school construction projects that can satisfy certain criteria for such funding, including eligibility due to growth, Division of State Architect plan approval. However, the Act also dramatically limits the maximum amount of impact fees, which can be charged by school districts as mitigation for new residential, commercial, and industrial construction. The Act also prohibits local agencies from denying a development application on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the fee amount and refusing to approve any legislative or adjudicative act on the basis that school facilities are inadequate. Page 3-136 ��"Kimev Hon, b \� and Associates Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Parks and Recreation Quimby Act Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477), cities and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The goal of the Quimby Act was to require subdividors to provide park and recreational lands to meet the increased demand from new subdivisions. Originally, the Act was designed to ensure "adequate" open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards, which ranged from three to five acres per 1,000 residents. Water Supply and Distribution Title 22 California Code of Regulations The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) promulgates and enforces state regulations for drinking water treatment facilities and distribution systems. These state regulations are at least as strict as federal drinking water regulations, although not all federal regulations are currently incorporated into corresponding state regulations. These state drinking water regulations are contained in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. The CDPH also regulates the distribution and use of recycled water through CCR Title 22. Urban Water Management Plan In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610 - 10656). The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that each urban water supplier, providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, shall prepare, update and adopt its urban water management plan at least once every five years on or before December 3 1, in years ending in five and zero. Wastewater Treatment Clean Water Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)) have as their goal the restoration of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The primary regulatory mechanism to achieve the goal is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The CWA requires that parties seeking to discharge pollutants to the water of the United States obtain a permit under the NPDES. The federal government has delegated responsibilities for implementing the CWA NPDES program in California to the State. A discharge of pollutants from a source with a single readily identifiable point of discharge, such as a municipal wastewater outfall, is only permitted if it meets certain quality standards, known as effluent limits. Effluent limits are based on available wastewater treatment technology. For surface water discharges of stormwater runoff, additional regulations may apply, as discussed further below. CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires states to identify surface waters within their boundaries where numeric or narrative water quality objectives are not being achieved or pv ZFj K-ley Ho Page 3-137 h� .d Associates Inc. Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities maintained and/or where beneficial uses are not fully protected after application of technology-based controls. Section 401 of the CWA requires applicants for federal licenses or permits to obtain safe certification that any discharge of pollutants to surface waters from a proposed activity will comply with the CWA, including applicable water quality standards. CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) regulate dredge and fill activities that affect jurisdictional wetlands and waters, including water quality aspects of such activities. California Porter-Cologne Act The California Porter-Cologne Act created an administrative structure and procedures for management of water quality in the state. California's water quality program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Each RWQCB is responsible for regulating water quality within their watershed. In accordance with the Porter-Cologne Act, each RWQCB implements the Basin Plan developed for its region by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges can affect water quality. These requirements can be either waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for discharges to land (which may impact groundwater), or federally delegated NPDES permits for discharges to surface water. Solid Waste Integrated Waste Management Act The Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) mandates that communities reduce their solid waste. The Act requires local jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by 1 995 and 50 percent by 2000, compared to a baseline of 1990. AB 939 also establishes an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. Local City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Chapter 7.78, Public Facilities Fee of the City of Dublin Municipal Code establishes a public facilities fee in order to finance public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of construction and acquisition costs of improvements to public facilities that are caused by future development. City of Dublin General Plan The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to public services and utilities within the project area: Parks/Recreational Facilities Guiding Policy A. Expand park areas throughout the primary and extended planning areas to serve new development. Guiding Policy B. Maintain and improve outdoor facilities in conformance with the recommendations of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Page 3-138 PIZ/1^ IeS HO � d A socmWt Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Implementing Policy C. Acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the standards and policies recommended in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Solid Waste Guiding Policy A. Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available to avoid constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan. Implementing Policy B. Continue to enforce City Source Reduction and Recycling/Household Hazardous Waste Elements. Implementing Policy C. Cooperate with Alameda County, as necessa , for adoption and ry implementation of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan, Implementing Policy D. Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their projects prior to issuance of building permits. Implementing Policy E. Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that demonstrates how they will contribute towards the City's State mandated diversion requirement. Sewage Treatment and Disposal Guiding Policy A. Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan. Implementing Policy B. Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior to the issuance of building permits. Water Supply Guiding Policy A. Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water if necessary. Implementing Policy B. Consider obtaining water from the East Bay Municipal Utility District and other sources. Relevant Project Characteristics Public Services Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per household and construction of 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons, which would increase the demand for fire and police protection service; educational facilities; parks and recreation facilities; and library services. Utilities would be served by existing services and upgraded to serve the proposed project. = =F,am,ey.,a� Page 3-139 tl A55oc��leS.Inc Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Impacts and Mitigation Measures Criteria for Determining Significance In accordance with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: E Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection, • Police protection, • Schools, • Parks, or • Other public facilities; Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; E Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments; E Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; E Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed; E Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; • Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs; and/or • Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Methodology Information in this section is derived primarily from the City of Dublin General P/an, the DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan, Dublin Unified School District Demographics Update, as well as personal communication with service providers. Page 3-140 ��-d As ...Jmc Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities Impacts and Mitigation Measure Electricity, Gas and Telecommunications Comcast currently provides cable television and Internet service; AT&T and numerous long-distance telecommunication companies provide telephone and cellular phone service; and PG&E provides electrical and natural gas services to the City. The project site is already served by these utilities and there is adequate infrastructure in place both on and adjacent to the project site to serve the proposed project. As such, redevelopment of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the need for construction of new electricity, gas or telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on electricity, gas and telecommunications. Increased Demand for Fire Protection Service Impact 3.10-1: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for fire protection services such that it would result in the need for or the construction of new or physically altered facilities to meet the City's response times or other standards for fire protection services. This is considered a less than significant impact. The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department to provide fire and rescue services. The County of Alameda currently provides the City with 36 line personnel that are assigned to the City at three fire stations (Stations 16, 17 and 18). Station No. 16 located at 7494 Donohue Dr. would be the first responder to any fire or emergency occurring within the project vicinity. This station has one engine and one truck company. Although the number of calls for service from the project site would likely increase with redevelopment of the project site from commercial/office use to residential and commercial/office use, the proposed project would be required to meet certain State building and fire codes. Typically, these codes require a development plan that provides for fire protection systems, ingress and egress, maximum occupancy limitations, and construction techniques and materials dictated by the proposed use of the structure (refer to the City of Dublin's Municipal Code, Chapter 5.08, Fire Code). Specifically, the Fire Department would review for conformance with locally-defined performance standards, including the California Fire Code, as adopted by the Fire Department, and California Building Code standards. Site access, capacity of the water mains, road widths and turning radii, road grades, surfacing, load bearing capability, sprinkler systems, stand pipes, smoke detectors, and fire alarms would also be reviewed for consistency with Fire Department standards. The proposed project will be required to fund its own project-specific on-site and off-site improvements consistent with existing City regulations and requirements. The City would collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) from the project applicant to help off-set fire protection-related capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by new development prior to issuance of a Building Permit. =n Kimsey-H.In Page 3-14 1 h and Assoc ales.Inc Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities As the proposed project would be required to comply with the Fire Code and other applicable fire protection regulations and to pay the City's public facilities fee, the proposed project is not expected to create any adverse impacts on fire protection services that would result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Law Enforcement Service Impact 3.10-2: The proposed project would not significantly increase the need for law enforcement services, which would result in the need for the construction of new or physically altered facilities in order to meet the City's response times. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services. The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Sheriffs Department for police services. The County Sheriff, under consultation with the City, designates a commanding officer that functions and is empowered to act as the City's Police Chief. Patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention, and business office functions are handled at the Dublin Civic Center location. Dublin Police Services is staffed so that there is a five-minute response time to all emergency calls. The City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel with a population of 46,572, for a ratio of 1.09 sworn personnel per 1,000 residents. Although the addition of new residents to the project site would slightly increase the demand for police services as compared to commercial/office uses on the project site, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on response times for police services and would not affect the Department's ability to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 7.32.300 (Building Security) and Chapter 7.32.3 10 (Nonresidential building security) of the City's Building Code, which includes building standards aimed at reducing law enforcement calls within the City. In addition, the City would collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) from future development to help off-set police service capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by the new development prior to issuance of a Building Permit to ensure that the proposed project will not cause impacts on law enforcement services that would result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on law enforcement services, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Educational Facilities Impact 3.10-3: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of students in the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The proposed project would include the construction of 54 residential units, which would generate approximately 28 students. These students would attend Dublin Elementary School, Wells Middle School and Dublin High School The proposed project would be Page 3-142 K-1CV-HO �� d Associates Inc Heritage Park Draft FIR Public Services and Utilities required to pay school impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD. This is considered a less than significant impact The proposed project would allow for a future net new development potential with a maximum of 54 residential units within the project site. Children from the proposed residential dwelling units would likely attend DUSD schools including: Dublin Elementary School; Wells Middle School; and Dublin High School. Based on the DUSD's student generation rate for medium density housing (single family residential with lots less than 4,000 square feet) of 0.525 K-12 students per home and 54 homes, the proposed project would generate approximately 28 students. As shown in Table 3.10-1: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site, there is currently an excess capacity of 977 students at the schools that would serve the proposed project. Future development within the project site would be required by law to pay school impact fees at the time of the building permit issuance. The DUSD currently charges development fees in the amount of $2.97 per square foot of residential development and $0.47 per square foot for commercial and industrial uses. These fees are used by the DUSD to mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities. A project applicant's fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD. School fees exacted from residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary school service and facilities improvements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within the DUSD service area, and would allow for the DUSD to allocate these funds as deemed necessary. Therefore, the increased demand on the DUSD is considered a less than significant impact on school services, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities Impact 3.10-4: The proposed project would increase the demand for park and recreational uses within the project site. However, development projects within the project area would be required to pay the City's Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance. This is considered a less than significant impact. ion of the proposed project would increase the demand for neighborhood and Implementat community parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by the proposed project. The City of Dublin Genera/Plan establishes park standards that call for five net acres per 1,000 residents. Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per household and construction of 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons. This would result in the demand of .73 acres of parks. The proposed project includes private open space at the residential units (e.g. private porches). The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities Fee would be applied to development at the project site. The Public Facilities Fees would vary according to the size of residential units, the location of the development, and a credit for the dedication of land p�M K—y y Han Page 3-143 \ aid A--Wt Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities and funding for construction of the parks. With payment of the City's public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Library Services or Other Public Facilities Impact 3.10-5: The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for library services. The proposed project would provide adequate property tax revenue to the City, a portion of which is used to fund libraries and other public facilities. Existing library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact. The Dublin Library is a partnership between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Library. Although the proposed project would increase the demand for library services, funding for additional library facilities and other public facilities would be provided with an increase in property taxes and therefore additional demand for these services could be met concurrent with implementation of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to require the construction of new library facilities; would not cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing library facilities; and would not physically impact other public facilities. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Change in Wastewater Demand Impact 3. 10-6 The proposed project would result in a decrease in the amount of wastewater generated at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the existing service provider has an adequate capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact. DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the project vicinity. The proposed project would connect to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon Way. The existing sewer is approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and therefore the proposed project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site sewer system would serve the Single Family Residential Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main located within Donlon Way. A separate sewer lateral would be installed for the commercial office building, which would connect to the existing main in Donlon Way. As shown in Table 3.10-3: Proposed Wastewater Generation, the proposed project would result in a dry weather flow of 1,410 gallons per day (gpd) based on an average daily flow of 256 gpd per Single Family Residential unit and 367 gpd per acre for commercial/office Page 3-144 cZn Kme,-HO,n and As-;es.1n. Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities use. Compared to the existing wastewater generation of 2,426 gpd, the proposed project would result in a reduction of the dry weather flow of 1,674 gpd. Table 3.10-3:Wastewater Generation Wastewater Land Use Units and Acres Wastewater Generation Rate* Generation Existing Land Use Commercial/Office 6.6 Acres 367.64 gallons per day per acre 2,426 gpd 2,426 d Subtotal Pro osed Land Use Commercial/Office 367.64 gallons per day per acre 0.75 Acres Single Family Residential 256 gallons per day per SFR 54 SFR units SFR ,410 d Subtotal -I,1 674 d Total *Rates from DRSD Based on the existing wastewater generation, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in dry weather wastewater flows that exceed existing infrastructure in the project vicinity. The proposed project would be responsible for the cost and construction of new backbone infrastructure, including the extension of collection lines required to serve the proposed project. Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD. In the District's Capital Improvement Plan, the costs of capital improvement projects are assigned to Local Sewer Replacement (Fund 210) and/or Local Sewer Expansion (Fund 220). The Replacement fund represents costs that are allocated to existing users (generally through sewer rates), and the Expansion fund represents the costs allocated to future users (generally through connection fees). Implementation of these actions would ensure that adequate wastewater infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would comply with wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The wastewater treatment plant has an excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day and could adequately serve the proposed project and therefore would have a less than significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment plant. The proposed project would be required to pay the sanitary sewer connection fee to the DSRSD in order for the District to serve the proposed project. This is considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Change in Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure Impact 3.10-7: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease in the water demand at the project site. This would be considered a less than significant impact. = =F,j m Y.H— Page 3-145 a A—,,a Mn Heritage Park Plan Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project would result in a decrease of 26,669 gallons per day with redevelopment of the project site from commercial/office to residential and commercial/office uses. The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown in Figure 2-10: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public water main located in Donlon Way. The proposed project would be required to pay connection and other fees to Zone 7 and DSRSD who currently charge connection fees for the construction of planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission, and on-going system water maintenance and improvements. With the payment of connection fees, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to water infrastructure in the City. Change in Stormwater Runoff Impact 3. 10-8: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease in stormwater flows through the project site. The proposed project would be required to install proposed drainage improvements and pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact. As previously mentioned, the City of Dublin Public Works Department maintains the City's storm drain pipelines that are located within public streets. Zone 7 owns and operates regional storm drain facilities that collect runoff from the City. Surface water management consists of both on-site runoff and the management of off-site runoff extending through or around the project site. As part of demolitions, a majority of existing storm drain facilities would be removed from the project site. As described in Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows, implementation of the proposed project would decrease the net peak I 0-year storm water flows from the project site from 13.4 cfs to 1 1.9 cfs, for a net reduction of 1.5 cfs, All stormwater would be detained on-site in one of three bioretention basins before being discharged into existing stormwater facilities. Stormwater in the residential area would drain into two bioretention basins located at the southern edge of the project site (Parcel D and Parcel E), before being discharged into an existing 24-inch storm drain pipe and into Dublin Creek. Stormwater from the proposed commercial office building would be collected in a separate bio-retention basin located within a re-configured parking lot before being discharged into a 27-inch storm drain located under Dublin Boulevard. Page 3-146 Can j mley-H— d Ass ales.Irk Heritage Park Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities In accordance with the Alameda County Clean Water Program, low impact design (LID) site design measures for water quality protection will be implemented to adequately address the impacts of the proposed project and to show compliance with the post- construction, long-term requirements of Provision C.3. Water quality features include bioretention areas, flow-through planters, tree well filters, median filters and "treatment trains." Trash capture facilities would also be incorporated into the system. These on-site facilities would be connected to the stormwater drain system in the backbone roadways. Stormwater Pollution Previsions Plans (SWPPPs) would also be prepared, as a separate document, to control short-term construction-related discharge pollutants as required by the CA State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ. In addition to installing the proposed drainage improvements, the proposed project would be required to pay applicable impact drainage fees at the time of development, which includes development impact fees to Zone 7 based on total increases in impervious surfaces associated with future development. Compliance with existing stormwater regulations and payment of these development impact fees to Zone 7 would ensure that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on stormwater infrastructure and services, and no mitigation is required Change in Generation of Solid Waste Impact 3.10-9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase the generation of solid waste, but would be served by landfills with adequate capacity to accommodate the increase. This is considered a less than significant impact. Development of the proposed project would convert the project site from commercial office uses to a combination of residential and commercial development within the City. Solid waste services are currently provided by Amador Valley Industries (AVI) and include the collection of waste, recycling, and organics. The proposed project would also generate construction debris during construction activities from the demolition of the existing office uses and removal of other improvements (e.g. asphalt and building materials, etc.). The City requires all construction and demolition projects to recycle at least 50 percent of waste generated on a job site (Chapter 7.30 of the Municipal Code). The City of Dublin also has an aggressive and comprehensive recycling program. All single-family residences are provided with recycling containers. In addition, free recycling service is available to all commercial customers that subscribe to solid waste collection. All solid waste generated by development under the proposed project would be deposited at the Altamont Landfill. The Altamont Landfill has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62,000,000 cubic yards. The total estimated capacity used is 16,280,000 cubic yards (or 26.3 percent), and the remaining estimated f this capacity is at 45,720,00 cubic landfill is January 20290 Developmdent under percent). The estimated closure date the proposed project would occur over an extended period of time, meaning the Altamont V�=F,K—Y-HOm Page 3-147 and Associates.Inc. Heritage Park Plan Draft FIR Public Services and Utilities Landfill would see an incremental increase in additional project solid waste until ultimate buildout of the proposed project. The proposed project calls for the construction 54 residential homes and a 14,000 square foot commercial office building. Table 3.10-5: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates provides the projected amount of solid waste with implementation of the proposed project. Table 3.10-5: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation Rates Solid Waste Generation Solid Waste Land Use S uare FeetlUnits Rate* Generation Existin Land Use Non-Residential (Office) 110,000 2.5 lb./1000 sq. ft./day .1375 tons/day Subtotal 1375 tons/da Pro osed Land Use Non-Residential (Commercial 14,000 sq. ft. 2.5 Ib./1000 sq. ft./day 017 tons/day Retail/Office Residential . 1223 lb./unit/day 54 residential units 33 tons/day Subtotal Difference 12.48 tons/day 1).34 tons/da *Rates from CalRec cle Website:,2013 The proposed project would generate approximately 12.34 tons of waste per day. The Altamont Landfill's permitted maximum disposal rate is 1 1,500 tons/day. The proposed project's solid waste generation amount represents approximately 0.1 percent of the landfill's maximum daily disposal rate. In addition, future development within the project area would be required to reduce 75 percent of trash through recycling and the composting of organics, which would also reduce the overall waste generation of the proposed project. Therefore, the Altamont Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the waste disposal needs of the proposed project. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Page 3-148 P1�/ Kmle>H� b� ,and Ass aces.Inc Heritage Park Draft FIR CEQA Consideration 4. CEQA Considerations This section of the EIR discusses long-term implications of the proposed project as required by CEQA. The topics discussed include significant irreversible commitment of resources, growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable environmental effects, energy conservation and effects found not to be significant. Cumulative impacts and alternatives to the proposed project are also discussed herein. 4.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects Unavoidable adverse impacts are those effects of the proposed project that would significantly affect the environment, and cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level as identified in the previous analyses. The proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. 4.2 Significant Irreversible Changes Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved if the proposed project would be implemented. Examples include the following: uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; primary and secondary impacts of a project that would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., highway improvements that provide access to a previously inaccessible area); and/or irreversible damage that could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the proposed project. Analysis Although, the project site is currently developed, a variety of nonrenewable and limited resources would be irretrievably committed for construction and operation of the proposed project, including but not limited to: oil, natural gas, gasoline, lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, water, land, energy, and construction materials. With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as project mitigation measures or project requirements, would ensure that all natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed project would result in an additional demand on public services and utilities. For example, an increase in the intensity of land uses within the project site would result in an increase in regional electric energy consumption to satisfy additional electricity demands from the proposed project. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, transport of goods and people, and lighting, heating, and cooling of buildings. However, the proposed project would not involve a wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would occur with new construction. In addition, the proposed project would be constructed and operated in accordance with specifications contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, the use of energy on-site would occur in an efficient manner. pv� a,meY-Horn Page 4 I �� i d Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations 4.3 Growth Inducement CEQA requires that growth-inducing aspects of a project be discussed in an EIR. According to CEQA, it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment. A project would have growth-inducing effects if it would: • Foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing (either directly or indirectly) in the surrounding environment; • Remove obstacles to population growth; • Tax existing community services or facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or • Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth. To comply with CEQA, an EIR must discuss the ways in which the proposed project could promote economic or population growth in the vicinity of the project and how that growth will, in turn, affect the surrounding environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)]. Foster Economic Growth The proposed project would increase population growth through increased residential units, which would indirectly contribute to commercial sales and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the regional area. The positive revenue stream may result in the creation of indirect and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those that would be created when the future owners and/or managers of the retail-commercial uses purchase goods and services from businesses in the City and the region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on the purchase of goods and services in City and the region. The project fosters economic growth primarily as the result of purchases of goods and services as well as payment of taxes and salaries, which affects the regional economy of the City and County, and on a more indirect basis, California. Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the proposed project could result in indirect growth-inducing impacts. Remove Obstacles to and/or Foster Population Growth Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the direct construction of new homes and businesses, the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of Page 4-2 i MFJ K,m� ey-Horn Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations (typically through the provision of additional capacity or supply), or the reduction or elimination of regulatory constraints on growth that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a growth-inducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond that already forecasted for the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin Housing Element estimates that the population of the City will be 62,700 residents in 2020. The proposed project provides for the future development of 54 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.73 persons per household, the proposed project would increase the population in the City by approximately 147 persons. With a current population of approximately 46,934 residents in the City, the proposed project would represent approximately .58 percent of this growth. Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City and includes a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed designations would be generally consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element, and would represent an incremental increase in population with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of removing an obstacle to growth. Tax Existing Community Services or Facilities or Encourage Other Activities that Could Affect the Environment The proposed project would not require significant regional public infrastructure upgrades for any utility or service. Water demand, wastewater generation, and stormwater runoff would be less as compared to existing conditions. Under these circumstances, the proposed project would not be growth inducing as a result of taxing existing communities or facilities such that construction of new facilities would be required or would not encourage other activities that could affect the environment. 4.4 Energy Conservation Public Resources Code Section 21 100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Appendix F require a description (where relevant) of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. In 1975, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575) in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for assessing potential impacts that a project could have on i n�mey-Ho Page 4-3 Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations energy supplies, focusing on the goal of conserving energy by ensuring that projects use energy wisely and efficiently. Because Appendix F does not include specific significance criteria, this threshold is based on the goal of Appendix F. Therefore, an energy impact is considered significant if the proposed project would: Develop land uses and patterns that cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy or construct new or retrofitted buildings that would have excessive energy requirements for daily operation. Project Energy Consumption Short-Term Construction In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the first set of emission standards (Tier 1) for all new off-road diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts (kW). The Tier I standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and 2000, reducing NOx emissions from these engines by 30 percent. The EPA Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for off-road diesel engines are projected to further reduce emissions by 60 percent for NOx and 40 percent for particulate matter from Tier I emission levels. In 2004, the EPA issued the Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule. This rule will cut emissions from off-road diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and will be fully phased in by 2014. As described in Section 3.2, Air Quality, the project would incorporate Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b to ensure that the proposed project utilizes diesel construction equipment that is equipped with Best Available Control Technology, complies with CARB's most recent certification standards for off-road heavy duty diesel engines, and achieves a 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction during all construction phases. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 b would not only reduce exhaust emissions, but would also improve the fuel economy of the equipment fleet. As such, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Also, diesel powered construction equipment in general will continue to become more efficient as the EPA standards phase in. Long Term Operations Transportation Energy Demand Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg). Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 Page 4-4 �X/1 Kimsey.Horn and ARO .,-Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration mpg. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. As discussed in Section 4.5, Effects Found Not to be Significant, the proposed project would result in a 600 net vehicle trip reduction as compared to existing conditions. In addition, the project site is located in proximity to the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and Wheels Routes 503, 10, 3, and R transit stops. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long- term operational fuel consumption. The proposed project involves typical residential, and office use type trips which would include internal trip capture rates. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by future development within the project area would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Other Non-Motorized Transportation Options The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides public transportation for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Additionally, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station provides LAVTA with easy connections to San Francisco and the East Bay via BART. Additionally LAVTA operates the Wheels local bus system, which provides regular bus service in Dublin as well as bus rapid transit service along Dublin Boulevard. The project site is located within 0.50 miles of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and 0.40 miles of Wheels Bus Routes 503, 10, 3, and R transit stops. Residents and employees would be encouraged to utilize the existing transit options in the project vicinity. The proximity of the project site to BART and Wheels routes would reduce the number of trips to and from the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy. Building Energy Demand According to Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data, the proposed project would result in a net reduction of approximately 1.54 million kilowatt hours (kWh) demand of electricity per year compared to the existing office complex on-site . In addition, the proposed project would be expected to result in a net consumption reduction of 232,360 British Thermal units (BTU) of natural gas per year compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would involve operations typical of residential and office uses, requiring electricity and natural for typical lighting, climate control, and day-to-day activities. Additionally, as stated in Section 3.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and C/imate Change, the proposed project would incorporate energy efficiency measures, including exceeding Title 24 requirements, and high efficiency lighting. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary . CZfJ K ',V-H Page 4-5 d Associates Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Energy Efficiency Measures Title 24, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings, was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements. The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. Additional savings result from the application of the Standards on building alterations. For example, requirements for cool roofs, lighting, and air distribution ducts are expected to save about additional of electricity. These savings are cumulative, doubling as years go by. Implementation of the project design features would result in reduced project-related GHG emissions. For example, the proposed project would comply with the Tier I requirements of Title 24, Part I I (California Green Building Standards Code) of the California Code of Regulations. Tier I requires projects to exceed Title 24 by 15 percent. Additionally, the proposed project would install high efficiency lighting. The project would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency. As such, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. 4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The term "environment,'' as used in this definition, means the physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposed project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Detailed analyses and discussion of environmental topics found to be significant are provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to be less than significant. The project site is an urban infll area and the following environmental resources do not exist on the project site and/or are not considered to have the potential to cause a significant environmental impact. As such, detailed analyses of the following environmental resources were not included in the EIR: E Agricultural and Forest Resources — The project site is developed and is not being utilized for agricultural uses. The project site is designated ''Other Land'' on the Alameda County Important Farm/and Map that is published by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). In addition, the project site does not contain any forest resources as defined by the CEQA Guidelines. Page 4-6 C:F1 K,me,..HO,n and Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration Biological Resources - The proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. Of these Heritage trees, five of them are California black walnuts located on the western edge of Donlon Way. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on ject site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage the perimeter of the pro Trees, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13 trees (36'' box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. Mineral Resources — According to the California Department of Conservation, Califomia Geologic Survey, the project site is not identified as an area with significant mineral deposits (DOC 2013). Population and Housing - The proposed project provides for the future development of a maximum of 54 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.73 persons per household and 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons upon buildout of the proposed project. With a current population of approximately 46,934 residents in the City, the proposed project would represent approximately .31 percent of this growth. Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City and includes a General Plan Amendment, the proposed designations would be consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dub/in Housing Element. See also, Section 4.3 above regarding growth inducement. There is no existing housing within the project site and therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing. Transportation and Circulation - As shown in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions, the proposed project would result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the trip generation for the existing development. pr Url Kimsey-Morn Page 4-7 and A55o Iles.InC Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions ITE Description ITE Size Units Trips Code Daily AM PM Existing Conditions General Office 710 I 1 0,000 SF I,4 I I 207 202 Proposed Trip Generation General Office 710 14,000 SF 294 39 94 Single Family Residential 210 54 DU 517 41 55 Total 811 80 149 Delta -600 -127 -53 Source:RBF Consulting 2013 Based on this preliminary analysis which shows a net reduction in trips, and the fact that the Downtown Dub/in Specific Plan EIR where most the project trips would be travelling allows for relaxed level of service (LOS) standards in the downtown area, the proposed project would have no impact during the AM and PM peak hour. 4.6 Cumulative Impacts CEQA Requirements CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are substantial or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. An evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA when they are significant, but need not be as detailed as the discussion of project impacts. Cumulative conditions are defined as conditions in the foreseeable future. The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR discuss the cumulative impacts of a project where the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The criteria for determining significance of cumulative impacts are the same as those that apply to the project-level analysis unless otherwise noted in this section, where other agency standards regarding cumulative analyses may apply. Where the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR indicates why the cumulative impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. Where the EIR identifies a significant cumulative impact, but finds that the project's contribution to that impact would be less than considerable, an explanation for that conclusion is provided. Page 4-8 :ZF,Kim,.y-„one and A—ate5.Inc. Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration According to the California State CEQA Guidelines section 15130 (a)(1), there is no need to evaluate cumulative impacts to which the project does not contribute. Relevant potential cumulative impacts to which the proposed project could contribute include: aesthetics; air quality; cultural resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation and circulation. Each of these topics is addressed herein. Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Assumptions Impacts associated with cumulative development were analyzed based on the proposed project's effects in combination with a summary of projections in the adopted City of Dublin General Plan (February 1 1, 1985, Updated May 2013) and the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Aesthetics The proposed project is located within an already urbanized area of the City and neither the project site nor surrounding area contain any scenic resources. Although implementation of the proposed project would allow redevelopment of the project site from commercial/office to residential and commercial/office uses, the proposed project is consistent with the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan which guides the design of future development within the area. The design guidelines in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan would also ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and glare, which would pose a hazard or nuisance. The proposed project would also be required to comply with a number of other City policy documents that address urban design and aesthetics, including the Streetscape Master Plan, Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan and the Bikeways Master Plan. In addition, future development would be required to undergo Site Development Review. The above considerations ensure that cumulative development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Conclusion., The proposed project would be required to comply with the design standards and guidelines in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan as well as other City policy documents, which would ensure that the proposed project does not contribute to cumulative light and glare in the City and surrounding areas, and would ensure that the proposed project is of quality design. The existing setting together with the design features of the proposed project would ensure the project's cumulative contribution to aesthetics would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to aesthetics. Air Quality Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in regional air emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources in exceedance of the BAAQMD thresholds with application of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 a, 3.2-1 b, and 3.2-2. The BAAQMD recommends that for any project that does not individually have significant p�Z"KIMI¢y-Horn Page 4-9 kh. and Associates.1K Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant 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. As noted above, the proposed project would be consistent with the primary goals and applicable control measures of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, Further, the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan control measures. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan consistency. Conclusion: With mitigation, any project contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. The same analysis and conclusion apply on a cumulative level and the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact as to consistency with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Cumulative Odor Impacts Cumulative development may result in airborne odors associated with construction equipment, as well as from commercial uses (e.g. restaurants) and other uses in the City. City regulations require protection from excessive odors (City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts, Chapter 8.64, Home Occupation Regulations, and Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts). Further, BAAQMD, Regulation No. 7 (Odorous Substances) establishes general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Conclusion:The proposed project consists of residential and office uses, which do not generate significant sources of odors. Further, the project would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code regulations and BAAQMD Regulation 7. Therefore, cumulative odor impacts would be less than significant. Cultural Resources The project site is located within a high archaeologically sensitive area. Mitigation measures MM 3.3-2a: Archaeological Monitoring and MM 3.3-2b: Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site-Specific Mitigation are incorporated into the Draft EIR to address the potential for unidentified archaeological resources within the project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact to cultural resources. Conclusion: No significant cumulative impacts are predicted relative to cultural resources after mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project as mitigated would have a less than significant cumulative impact to cultural resources. Geology and Soils The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each construction site has unique geologic considerations that would be subject to uniform site development and Page 4-10 C G"and'A aoo.we Heritage Park Draft FIR CEQA Consideration construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to soil or other conditions (liquefaction, expansive soils, surface fault rupture, etc.) occur at individual building sites. Buildings and facilities in the City of Dublin would be sited and designed in accordance with the City's Building Code. General Plan, Specific Plan and findings from a design-level geotechnical study prepared for future development in accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. Cumulative development could expose soil surfaces and further alter soil conditions, subjecting soils to erosional processes during construction. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, all proposed construction projects in the City are required to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, county, and City laws and ordinances. Adequate control of sedimentation and erosion must be incorporated into individual projects to address current legal requirements for control of erosion caused by stormwater discharges. The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES permitting process and local implementation strategies, which would minimize the potential for erosion during construction and operation. In addition, future development would be required to comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Department Policy No. 95-I I to control erosion during construction activities. Compliance with this permit process, in addition to the City's Building Code and other legal requirements related to erosion control practices, would minimize cumulative effects from erosion. Therefore, cumulative impacts would considered be less than significant. Conclusion., Extensive federal, state and local regulations address erosion and sedimentation control. Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety regarding geologic and seismic hazards and would prevent soil erosion. The proposed project is required to be sited and designed in accordance with the City's Building Code. General Plan, and findings from a design-level geotechnical study in accordance with Mitigation Measure MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. Therefore, the proposed project as mitigated would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to geology and soils. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Cumulative development has the potential to result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions in the region. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in a net reduction of GHG emissions of 3,328.28 MTCO2eq/year due to a reduction in mobile source emissions. The BAAQMD threshold for annual GHG emissions is 1,100 MTCO2eq/year; as such, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for GHG emissions. Conclusion: The proposed project would be consistent with the City's CAP. Therefore, as the project is consistent with the CAP, and the CAP is is with AB 32, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction p, KIl y-Horn Page 4-1 1 ��and Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32. Since the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD's 1,100 MTCOZeq/year threshold, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact with regards to global climate change, and a cumulative contribution from project-related GHG emissions. Hazards & Hazardous Materials The proposed project could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials, particularly during construction activities. In addition, future development within the project site could include hazardous waste typical of proposed residential and commercial uses such as the routine transport, use, or disposal of any regulated hazardous materials. Cumulative development would likely generate similar types of waste from operational and construction impacts, all of which would be regulated by federal, state and local statutes. Conclusion: Hazardous materials and substances are highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean- up would ensure that cumulative development, which includes the project site as well as implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 3.6-4, and MM 3.6-5 would ensure that the proposed project as mitigated would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality As described in Table 3.7-1: Pre- and Post- I 0-Year Stormwater Flows, existing pre- development off-site stormwater flows stormwater outflows from the project site was calculated to be 13.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a 10-year storm event. Post- development stormwater flows would be 1 1.9 cfs, resulting in a net decrease of 1.5 cfs for a ten year storm event (Carlson, Barbee, & Gibson 2013). All stormwater would be treated in one of three on-site bioinfiltration basins prior to leaving the project site. Conclusion: Compliance with NPDFS construction of the bio-retention basins would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to stormwater runoff and water quality. Land Use and Planning The City of Dublin has planning programs such as the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code, that have established plans and guidelines for growth and development within the City under buildout of the City of Dublin General Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with habitat conservation plan, create land use incompatibilities or physically divide a community, conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations, or result in urban decay or blight. Conclusion: Development of the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would not conflict with applicable plans or policies. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed project with respect to future Page 4-12 ►=/ 1 Kimiey-Hoer and Aga„'es.� Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to land use and planning. Noise Upon completion of construction and during operation of other cumulative development, it is expected that each project would generate noise from stationary sources (e,g., HVAC equipment, parking lot noise, etc.). The noise generated by stationary equipment associated with cumulative projects cannot be quantified due to the speculative nature of conceptual nature of each development. However, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential noise impacts and identify necessary attenuation measures, where appropriate. Additionally, noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, so noise impacts from stationary sources would be limited to each of the respective sites and their vicinities. Other potential development anticipated under the General Plan is not located in close proximity to the project site. Conclusion: Due to distance, it is unlikely that stationary noise associated with the proposed project would overlap with stationary noise sources of other cumulative development. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in significant stationary noise impacts that would significantly affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Thus, the proposed project and identified cumulative projects would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an overall trip reduction of 600 trips (RBF Consulting 2013), Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative mobile source noise as it would result in lower traffic noise levels as compared to existing conditions. Thus, the proposed project, in combination with cumulative background traffic noise levels, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in this regard. Public Services and Utilities Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if cumulative development would overburden the public service agencies, and if utility providers were unable to provide adequate services. Implementation of the proposed project in combination cumulative development would result in the increased demand for public services, which would result in the need for the provision of fire and police protection services, educational services, and parks and recreation facilities with the construction of residential uses at the project site. However, development fees would provide funding in order to help off-set capital improvements and maintenance to these services. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on public services. The proposed project would result in less of a demand for water and wastewater as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would result in a decrease of 8,385 gallons per day of interior water use and 18,281 gallons per day of exterior water i6"K-lay-Horn Page 4-13 and A-sociates.inc Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations use as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would result in a decrease of dry weather flow of 1,674 gallons per day of wastewater as compared to existing conditions. The wastewater treatment plant currently has capacity for 17.0 million gallons per day of dry weather flow with an average flow per day of 1 1.48 million gallons per day and excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day. Therefore, the wastewater treatment plant has capacity to serve the proposed project and the water demands can be provided by DSRSD. Conclusion: The increased need for funding of public services would be covered by the City's public facilities fee (Chapter 7.78, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), which is assessed on all new construction. Development fees are assessed on a project-by-project basis to fund improvements to meet the increased demand on public services. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in regards to public services. The generation of wastewater and demand for water can be accommodated by the DSRSD and therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a less than significant cumulative impact to utilities. 4.7 Project Alternatives The alternatives discussion briefly identifies and describes several alternatives as developed by City staff that would feasibly attain most of the project objectives and would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the proposed project including the following: • Alternative #I — No Project Alternative • Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Alternative This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of these alternatives as compared with the impacts resulting from the proposed project. The impact level of each of the altematives (less, similar, greater) is noted in parentheses at the beginning of each comparison. Table 4.5-2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project at the conclusion of this section provides a summary. This section also identifies the "environmentally superior'' alternative. 4.10.1 Relationship to Project Objectives Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed project can help the City develop a reasonable range of alternatives. Each alternative would be evaluated as to how well it meets the objectives of the project, as currently proposed. The City of Dublin and the project applicant have provided the following project objectives for the proposed project: L Design new housing and commercial uses consistent with the Dub/in I///age Historic Area Specific Plan, Ensure a viable infill project that provides for the creation of new housing in proximity to Downtown Dublin and public transit. Page 4-14 [ZF,K—ey.Horn Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration • Create a community that is compatible in scale and design with surrounding land uses. • Establish a cohesive community feel in the project area through compliance with the Dublin Historic Ili//age Specific Plan design guidelines that ensure consistency between individual neighborhoods while allowing unique architectural expression. 4.10.3 Alternative #I — No Project Alternative Characteristics CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a No-Project alternative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project site remaining in its current state or development of the project site under its current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Because the proposed project proposes General Plan land use changes, Alternative #I — No Project Alternative considers the environmental effects of not approving the proposed project with the continuation of the existing 1 10,000 square foot commercial/office complex at the project site into the future. Comparative Analysis Aesthetics (slightly greater . There would be no change in the visual character of the project site under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the existing structures would remain, which are considered inconsistent with the vision of the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in slightly greater impacts as compared to the proposed project. Air Quality(slightly greater). The No Project Alternative would continue commercial/office uses at the project site into the future and would not place residential uses adjacent to Interstate-580. However, mitigation measures incorporated herein would reduce potential health risk hazards to residential uses to a less than significant level. In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative includes a slightly greater volume of vehicle trips and air quality emissions during operations, which would result in slightly greater air quality emissions compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in slightly greater air quality emissions as compared to the proposed project. Cultural Resources (less). The No Project Alternative would eliminate potential damage to any unknown cultural resources, including historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources, and/or human remains that could result with construction of the proposed project. Although, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources with mitigation measures incorporated herein, the No Project Alternative would result in slightly less impacts to cultural resources as compared to the proposed project. Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project in that the project site could still be exposed to seismic ground ��K-1.v Han Page 4-15 Gand Associates lnc Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Considerations shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils. Although the No Project Alternative would not expose up to 54 residential units to seismic ground shaking, development associated with the proposed project would still be required to comply with the City's Building Code and the California Building Code. In addition, the proposed project has been designed to incorporate a 25-foot buffer for the Calaveras fault that traverses the project site . Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (slightly greater). The No Project Alternative has slightly greater greenhouse gas emissions due to greater vehicle emissions as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative results in slightly greater impacts as compared to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (similar). Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative includes hazardous waste typical of commercial uses such as the routine transport, use or disposal of regulated hazardous materials. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality (greater). Surface water runoff under this alternative is greater due to the amount of impervious surfaces at the project site and increased stormwater runoff as compared to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project includes the installation of two proposed bio-retention parcels that would collect and clean stormwater runoff before discharging it from the project site in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board current standards. As the No Project Alternative does not currently meet current standards, impacts under this alternative would be greater as compared to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning (similar). The No Project Alternative would result in no change to existing conditions and would continue to be consistent with the land use designation in the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan and the City of Dublin General Plan, The proposed project would amend these documents to be consistent with the proposed land use. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Noise (less). The No Project Alternative would result in no short-term construction as compared to the proposed project. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not require noise barriers and would not expose single family residences to long-term traffic noise exposure from Interstate 580. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in less impacts as compared to the proposed project. Pub/ic Services and Utilities (similar). The No Project Alternative would result in less impacts to public services due to a reduction in demand for schools, fire, police, and parks from residential uses as compared to the proposed project. However, the demand for water, sewer and stormwater runoff under the No Project Alternative would be greater as Page 4-16 [MFJ„me,Hom �d Associates.in.^ Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration compared to the proposed project. Overall, impacts to public services and utilities under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives This alternative would not be consistent with any of the project's objectives, including ensuring a long-term financially viable infill project in the Dub/in t///age Historic Area Specific Parr, providing housing capacity to meet the city's projected housing needs in City's Housing Element; and creating a desirable livable community with a strong sense of place for the residents of the City of Dublin. 4.10.4 Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Alternative Characteristics Alternative #2 — Retail Office would consist of a 172,498 square foot retail and office uses, consistent with the existing land use designation and maximum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of .60 in the Dub/in V//age Historic Area Specific Plan. This would result in an increase of 62,498 square feet at the project site of retail and office uses as compared to existing conditions. Under Alternative #2, the retail and office uses would be constructed consistent with the design standards and guidelines in the Dublin t/llage Historic Area Specific Plan, The proposed retail/office use would be located outside of the 25-foot buffer zone of the Calaveras Fault, and outside of the FEMA 500-year flood zone. Comparative Analysis Aesthetics (similar). Alternative #2 would be consistent with the vision of the Dub/in Village Historic Area Specific Plan and the City of Dublin General Plan. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Air Quality (greater). Alternative #2 would not place residential uses adjacent to Interstate-580. However, mitigation measures incorporated herein would reduce potential health risk hazards to residential uses proposed by the proposed project to a less than significant level. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative #2 would result in an increase in vehicle trips to the project site, which would subsequently increase mobile source emissions. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in greater air quality emissions as compared to the proposed project. Cultural Resources (similar). Alternative #2 would include ground disturbing activities (e.g. grading and excavation) within a high archaeological sensitivity area. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts to cultural resources with mitigation measures incorporated herein. Geology and Soils (similar). Impacts under Alternative #2 would be similar to the proposed project in that the project site could still be exposed to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive soils. Alternative #2 would also be required to �F,a,mley-�� Page 4-17 � nd Associates.I� Heritage Park Draft FIR CEQA Considerations comply with the City's Building Code and the California Building Code, as well as incorporate a 25-foot buffer for the Calaveras fault. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (greater). Alternative #2 would result in greater greenhouse gas emissions due to an increase in vehicle emissions from more vehicle trips to the project site. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (similar). Similar to the proposed project, the Alternative #2 would include hazardous waste typical of commercial uses such as the routine transport, use or disposal of regulated hazardous materials. Therefore, Alternative #2 would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality (similar). Surface water runoff under this alternative would be similar as compared to the proposed project, as both projects would have similar site coverage and both would be required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that require post-development off-site flows to be similar or less than pre- development conditions.. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning (less). Alternative #2 would continue to be consistent with the land use designation in the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan and the City of Dublin General Plan. The proposed project would amend these documents to be consistent with the proposed land use. Therefore, Alternative #2 would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Noise (similar). Alternative #2 would result in the construction of retail/office instead of residential and commercial/office uses. This would result in a slight reduction of noise impacts as compared to the proposed project due to the reduced exposure of residential uses to noise from Interstate 580. However, the proposed project incorporates noise barriers into the project design, which would reduce project noise impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities (similar). Alternative #2 would result in less impacts to public services as compared to the proposed project due to a reduction in demand for schools, fire, police, and parks. However, the demand for water, sewer and increased stormwater runoff is anticipated to be greater as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative #2 would be similar to the proposed project. Consistency with Project Objectives This alternative would be consistent with the project's objectives, including ensuring a long- term financially viable infll project in the Dublin I/llage Historic Area Specific P1,317 and creating a desirable livable community with a strong sense of place for the residents of the Page 4-18 MrJ Ki Ii y.Fim b- ald Associates Im Heritage Park Draft EIR CEQA Consideration City of Dublin. It would not be consistent with the objective of providing housing capacity to meet the city's projected housing needs in City's Housing Element. 4.10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires that the environmentally superior alternative be identified. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The environmentally superior alternative is Alternative #2 — Retail/Office Alternative followed by Alternative #I — No Project Alternative. Table 4 -2: Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project EAesthetics mental Category Alternative#11 —No Alternative#2— Pro'ect Alternative Retail/office Alternative Slightly Greater Similar lit Slightly Greater Greater Cultural Resources Less Similar Geology and Soils Similar Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Slightly Greater Greater Change Hazards and Hazardous Similar Similar Materials Hydrology and Water Greater Similar Quality Less Land Use and Plannin Similar Noise Less Similar Public Services and Similar Similar Utilities Ability to Meet Project Less Less Ob ectives Ki Il y-H.M Page 9-19 C.►1�„d Asso 1-hl Heritage Park Draft EIR References S. References References Cited Alameda County. Livermore Airport Master P/an, 201 1. Airport Data.com, Camp Parks Heliport (4CA3) Information, Accessed May 20, 2013. htLp://www.airport- data.com/airporU4CA3/. Alameda County, Alameda County Hydrology and Hydraulics Manual. 2003. Alameda County. Livermore Municipal Airport Draft Land Use Compatibility Plan, 201 1. Alameda County Flood Control and Conservation District. Hydrologic Procedures and Design Discharges for the Zone 7 1997. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Dam Failure Inundation Map web site (http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/Daminundation/). Accessed June 18, 2013. ABAG. 2000 Census Data. http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/overview/datacenter/popdemo/. Accessed June 18, 2013. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Options andjustification Report, October 2009. BAAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 201 1. BAAQMD. Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool, Alameda Permitted Sources, May 30, 2012. BAAQMD. Tools and Methodology web site (http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning- and-Research/CEQA-GUI DELI NES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx) Accessed November 1 1, 2013. BAAQMD. 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. September 2010. Brian-Kangas-Foulk. Santa Rita Drainage Master Plan. 1995. Bureau Veritas. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 21, 2012. California Department of Conservation (DOC). Califomia Geological Survey web site �http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/index.aspx�. Accessed October 14, 2013. California Department of Conservation. Alameda County Important Farmland Map, 2010. Z"a m ey-Horn Page 5-1 d AS$O—IeS.1n Heritage Park Draft EIR References California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System, Summaries from 2010 to 2012 web site (http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/). Accessed November 5, 2013. California Department of Transportation. Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit, All Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2012 web site (http://traffic- counts.dot.ca.gov/2012all/index.html). Accessed November 4, 2013. Cal Engineering and Geology. Geotechnical and Geologic Review, Geotechnical and Fault Rupture Hazards Reports, Proposed Heritage Park Residential Development, Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. July 2013. Cal Engineering and Geology. Second Geotechnical and Geologic Review, Geotechnical and Fault Rupture Hazards Reports, Proposed Heritage Park Residential Development, Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. August 2013 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson. Heritage Park Hydrology Analysis November 4 and November 24, 2013. City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 1 1, 1985, updated January 19, 2010. City of Dublin. Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan. 2006. City of Dublin. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Draft Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, Draft Parks and Recreation Master Pan 2006 Update, Dublin Historic Park Draft Master Plan, and Dublin Village Historic Area Rezoning. May 2006 City of Dublin. City of Dublin Municipal Code. City of Dublin. City of Dublin Final Model Development Report. Apn12012. City of Dublin. Wildfire Management Plan. Adopted July 1996. Revised November 2010. City of Dublin. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan. 2010. Cyril M. Harris. Handbook of Noise Control. 1979. Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc. Heritage Park Environmental Noise Study. July 18, 2013. Charles M. Salter and Associates, Inc. Heritage Park Noise Requirements for Single Family Homes September 16, 2013. Dublin San Ramon Community Services District (DSRSD). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 201 1. Page 5-2 ../1 K-1i,born and Associates.Inc Heritage Park Draft EIR References Dublin Unified School District. Ca/PADS Enrollment. October 2013. Dublin Unified School District. Demographics Update, Board of Trustees Meeting. March 2012. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guide lines, May 2006. HortScience. Preliminary Tree Report, Heritage Park October 2013. Intergovern mental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change, The Science of Climate Change — Contribution of Working Group l to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. 1 996. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Alameda County Soil Survey. 1 996. State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker Database web site. (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) Accessed October 15, 2013. Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company. Updated Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation. June 26, 2013. Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company. Geotechnical Investigation, Heritage Park Residential Development. March 2, 2012. TJKM Transportation Consultants. Shared Parking Analysis for Heritage Park Office/Church/Restaurant Uses in the City of Dublin. September 9, 2013. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of United States Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2009. April 201 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. High GWP Gases and Climate Change, June 14, 2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, October 29, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1 996/January/Day-19/pr-372.htm1, accessed on November 29, 2012. United States Environmental Paooe�oioone/ods htm�/access�zon NDepmbe�2012 Substances, August 19, 2010. http://www.ep g U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency ons/ ase�f ases html). EmIssions web July 15 2013. site (http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemiss g g U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone.' Listing of Global Warming Potential for Ozone Depleting Substances, dated October 29, 2009 = =f,K-1 Y-„orn Page 5-3 tl AS-IeS.1n Heritage Park Draft EIR References (http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1 996/January/Day-19/pr-372.htm1). Accessed on November 5, 2013. The Weather Channel Web Site: (http://www.weather.com/outlook/events/weddings/wxci1matoIogy/monthly/graph/USCA03 14). Accessed November 4, 2013. William Self and Associates. Archaeo%gica/Assessment Report, Don/on Way Specific pan, August 2003. Page 5-4 =fin K—m H- antl A—ate Inc. Heritage Park Draft EIR References List of Preparers City of Dublin Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager Luke Sims, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director Andrew Russell, City Engineer Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer Jayson Imai, Senior Civil Engineer RBF Consulting Bill Wiseman, Vice President Erika Spencer, Senior Environmental Planner Jonathan Schuppert, Environmental Planner Eddie Torres, Air Quality and Noise Specialist Achilles Malisos, Air Quality and Noise Specialist Ryan Chiene, Air Quality and Noise Specialist 2222573.1 a^,QY_„a� Page 5-5 C�„ d Associates Inc City of Challenge Dairy _.d Dublin 111111111 HIM fin M If all 'In"Ishi HIM , l/sail'!' r�,� I! \ �...� ` � .�� ' •��,i rl � �pR�� ` e_ __ _._ 1N� tear F C r, www wm/\�/I a tt n DUBLIN CEMETERY ; r - r t Heritage Park Final Environmental Impact Report OIL� U toot- ' r + ` �. Recel ve JU/V 0 2 2014 DUBL//V PLA/V/rr NG Heritage Park Final Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2013092043 Prepared for City of Dublin y rr Prepared by Kimley))) Horn in association with WF A MM Company June 2014 Heritage Park Final EIR Table of Contents I Introduction 1_1 1.1 Document Organization and Framework..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses........................................... 1-2 2 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR 2.1 3 Changes to the Draft EIR 3-1 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-1 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Format................................................................................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Enforcement...................................................................................................................................................4-2 Kimley}»Horn Page i Heritage Park Final EIR I Introduction The Heritage Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for a 45- day public review period from Monday, March 3, 2014 to Thursday, April 17, 2014, as assigned by the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and consistent with CEQA regulations. Copies of the document were distributed to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment. This Heritage Park Final FIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and state and local CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City, as CEQA Lead Agency. This Final FIR, together with the DEIR, technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the FIR process, as those documents may be modified by the City Council at the time of certification, will constitute the Final FIR, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, and the City of Dublin's environmental document reporting procedures. 1.1 Document Organization and Framework This Response to Comments package is organized as follows: Section I provides a brief introduction to this report. Section 2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR. This section also contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the responses, an index number (e.g., I- 1, 1-2, 2-1) has been assigned to each comment and to its corresponding responses. Section 3 contains changes to the Draft FIR as a result of the comments by agencies and interested persons. City Staff has reviewed the comment letters, draft responses and information generated in the course of preparing the responses and determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires a recirculation period for further public comment under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in Section 15088.5. Kimley»)Horn Page I-I Heritage Park Final EIR 1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be, "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated." Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible... CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by those submitting comments. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." Kimley»)Horn page 1-2 Heritage Paris Final EIR 2 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR This section includes all written comments received on the DEIR and the City's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underline for additions and 44EeeH for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period: Table 2-I: List of Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR Comment Commenting Agency/ Person Date of Comment Letter No. I Alameda County Fire Department 4/10/14 2 Dublin San Ramon Service District 3/18/14 3 Dublin Unified School District 4/18/14 4 Dublin Historical Preservation Association 4/15/14 5 Richard Guarienti 4/16/14 6 Steve Minniear 4/7/14 Kimley)»Horn Page 2-1 % PyPMEDA CpUryTh . Comment Letter #1 OF ,82 R M E s Alameda County Fire Department DEPAR"T Fire Prevention O11 BUl eaU ` �LrFOR�`� City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza,Dublin,California 94568 Phone:925-833-6606 Fax:925-829-9248 APPLICATION REFERRAL LETTER COMMENTS DATE: April 10, 2014 TO: Mike Porto—Consultant Project Manager FROM: Darrell Jones—Deputy Fire Marshal SUBJECT/PERMIT#: E.I.R HERITAGE PARK (PLPA 2013-00002) ADDRESS: 11875 DUBLIN BLVD Review of Planning referrals are usually based on information and plans that lack sufficient information and details for specific comments. The primary focus of our review is to assure fire access to the site. Specific fire and building code issues will be addressed during the regular building permit submittal and review process. Comments: PLEASE REVISE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 1. Fire Access to lots #32-37 appears inadequate as shown 2. Revise 3.10 Public Services: Station 16 has single patrol not two as listed & Station 17 is second due responding station not primary= station 16 1-2 G:AFP\Dublin\Plan Check\Dublin Blvd\11875\13 PI-PA-00002 draft EIR revision required.doc Heritage Paris Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#I from Mr. Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department— Fire Prevention Bureau, dated April 10, 2014 Response to Comment I-I — Fire Access to Lots #32—37 appears inadequate Comment noted. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Dublin that access to Lots #32 -37 is adequate to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Fire Department. Response to Comment 1-2—Revisions to Section 3.10 Public Services of the Draft EIR Comment noted and revisions to the DEIR, as shown in Section 3, have been incorporated into this Final EIR. Kimley»)Horn Page 2-1 Comment Letter#2 Subject: FW: Errors in Heritage Park Draft EIR -----Original Message----- From: Stan Kolodzie<kolodzie(cDdsrsd.com> To: mike.porto <mike.porto(cDdublin.ca.gov> Cc: Steven Delight<delighta_dsrsd.com>; Rhodora Biagtan <biagtant�dsrsd.com> Sent: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 10:46 am Subject: Errors in Heritage Park Draft EIR Mike, Here is a summary of the mathematic errors I found in tables 2-1 and 3.10-3 We found this Draft EIR to be inadequate due to both the presence of mathematic errors in the topics of concern to DSRSD and the omission of any discussion of recycled water. Mathematic Errors: 1) In table 2-1, the DSRSD factor for exterior water use is erroneously given as 3,125 gallons per day per acre. This factor is actually 312.5 gallons per day per acre. The resultant total exterior water calculated is in error by a factor of 10; 2) The interior water use 2-1 factor for residential units is correctly given as 225 gallons per day per unit. However, the result of multiplying this factor by 54 new units is incorrectly calculated as 1,215 gallons per day rather than the correct result of 12,150 gallons per day; 3) the Net Difference from development in Table 2-1 is incorrectly calculated to be a water savings (26,669 gallons per day) rather than an increased water demand (721.9 gallons per day). More Mathematic Errors: In a similar way, Table 3.10-3 incorrectly shows the calculation of 54 residential units times the wastewater generation factor of 256 gallons per day. The correct result of 13,824 gpd should be added to the wastewater generation of the commercial/office factor of 276 gpd to yield a subtotal of 14,100 gpd. Therefore the proposed development will actually show an INCREASE in wastewater generation of 11,674 gpd rather than a decrease as 2-2 shown in the table. Two of the entries in the far right column of this table are hard to decipher. The entrees are close to the bottom right. They are 1,3824 gpd" and "-1,1674 gpd". These two numbers don't make any sense to me. Also, they create errors in the table since 276 gpd and 1,3824 gpd" are shown to add to 1,410 gpd. Recycled Water: DSRSD did not find any discussion in the document of the use of Recycled Water for landscape irrigation to decrease the demand for potable water. DSRSD requires that 2-3 Recycled Water be used for landscape irrigation on sites other than single family homes to decrease total potable water demand.in new projects. The errors above create a significant error in that the tables purport to show that the project will reduce potable water demand and reduce wastewater handling demand. The correct numbers show the project will actually INCREASE both potable water demand and wastewater handling demand. I would be available to review these conclusions with the authors of the draft EIR if needed. Stan Kolodzie DSRSD Associate Engineer i Heritage Paris Final FIR Response to Comment Letter#2 from Mr. Stan Kolodzie, Dublin San Ramon Service District (via email), dated March 18, 2014 Response to Comment 2-1 —Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand The commenter notes mathematical errors in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand relating to exterior water demand. The table has been revised in Section 3 of the Final EIR and the analysis of impacts (Impact 3.10-7 Change in Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure) has been revised. The analysis of cumulative impacts to water and wastewater (Section 4.6 Cumulative Impacts — Public Services and Utilities) has also been revised. Even with the corrected water factors, project-induced and cumulative impacts will remain less than significant, as further explained in the Section 3 revisions. Response to Comment 2-2—Table 3.10-3: Wastewater Generation The commenter notes mathematical errors in Table 3.10-3: Wastewater Generation related to wastewater generation for the single-family residential units. The table has been revised in Section 3 of the Final EIR and the analysis of impacts (Impact 3.10-6 Change in Wastewater Demand) has been revised. The analysis of cumulative impacts to wastewater (Section 4.6 Cumulative Impacts — Public Services and Utilities) has also been revised. Even with the corrected wastewater factors, project-induced and cumulative impacts will remain less than significant, as further explained in the Section 3 revisions. Response to Comment 2-3 —Use of Recycled Water Commenter states they did not find any discussion in the document regarding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation to decrease the demand for potable water which is required on sites other than single family homes in new projects. Comment noted. As part of project approvals by DSRSD to serve the proposed project, the project applicant is required to adhere to all relevant DSRSD regulations including Ordinance No. 301 which requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family residential, and institutional irrigation uses. Additionally, the project applicant is required to comply with Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code —Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for irrigation, which requires the following: • Preparation of a water-efficient landscape worksheet to demonstrate compliance with a "maximum applied water allowance" as defined by the CA Department of Water Resources. • Preparation of a soil management report to reduce runoff and encourage healthy plan growth. • Preparation of a landscape design plan that includes the selection of water- conserving plant and turf species, the use of recycled water where available, and the use of mulch and amendments to retain moisture. • Preparation of an irrigation design plan to minimize the use of water. KimleyoHorn Page 2-2 Heritage Paris Final EIR Preparation of a grading design plan to minimize soil erosion, runoff, and water waste. Conclusion: Recalculating water and wastewater figures in accordance with the comments increases the project demand compared to the DEIR information and analysis. However, even with the increased figures, the related impacts remain less than significant. Use of recycled water is addressed in DSRSD regulations (Ord. 310) and City regulations (Ch. 8.88) and thus, already apply to the Project. This information clarifies existing regulations affecting recycled water and does not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts requiring recirculation of the DEIR. Kimley}»Horn Page 2-3 Comment Letter#3 z, DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 7471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin,CA 94568-1599 • 925-828-2551 • www.dubIIn.k12.ca.us All Dublin Students will Become Lifelong Learners i April 18, 2014 Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager City of Dublin j Community Development Department f 100 Civic Plaza I Dublin, CA 94568 Email: mike.porto dublin ca yov Re: Dublin Unified School District Comments re Heritage Park Draft Environmental Impact Report i [ Dear Mr. Porto: The Dublin Unified School District ("District") provides these comments in response to the City of Dublin's ("City") DRAFT Environmental Impact Report entitled Heritage Park, State Clearinghouse No. 2013092043 (referred to herein as the"DEIR"). By letter dated March 4, 2014, to Luke Sims, Community Development Director, regarding the Impact of Zone Changes, the District provided Information about the foreseeable impacts of proposed land use/General Plan Amendments, including but not limited to the Heritage Park 3-� entitlements, on the District's ability to house students generated by new residential development. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Project and Cumulative Impacts on District Schools Section 3.10 of the DEIR (Public Services and Recreation) addresses impacts on public schools that would serve the project area. Specifically, Impact 3.10-3 provides that"Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of students in the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The proposed project would include the construction of 54 residential units, which would generate approximately 28 students. These students would attend Dublin Elementary School, Wells Middle School and Dublin High School. The proposed project would be required to pay school Impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD. This is considered a less than significant impact." 3-2 However, the District's high generation figures from the project, which are routinely exceeded by actual enrollment, are as follows: elementary: 19, middle school: 8 and high school: 9 students, for a total of 36 students. While the DEIR states that the three schools that would be expected to accommodate these students have sufficient space to house the students to be generated by this project, the District's March 4, 2014, letter to Mr. Sims tells a different story. Looking just at the elementary level, Dublin Elementary School is already short forty seats, well over a full classroom, of capacity to house its current student enrollment. Furthermore, as stated in the District's March 4, 2014, letter to Mr. Sims, "[O]verall, the infill project areas under consideration, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3, Frederick, The Green at Park Place, The Groves Lot 3, Heritage Park, Schaefer Ranch Unit 3, and the Transit Center Site A-1, are proposed to generate a total of 975 students from 3,628 units, 400 more than the current densities for those areas would generate. These are the "high" generation rates which District enrollment has consistently exceeded." The District urges the City to consider this cumulative development potential rather than looking at each project in isolation. At the elementary level, Dublin Elementary School will be faced with 272 new students from these project areas, and it is already short forty seats, well over a full classroom. The District plans to add six portable and six permanent classrooms to this school to house growth anticipated WITHOUT these changes in density. The DEIR's analysis of cumulative impacts fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of these projects on the District's capacity to house new students generated by these residential infill projects. While the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Assumptions section states at Page 4-9 that cumulative impacts "were analyzed based on the proposed project's effects in combination with a summary of 3-3 projections in the adopted City of Dublin General Plan (February 11, 1985, Updated May 2013) and the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)," the DEIR does not describe the projects or their cumulative Impacts at all. The DEIR states at Page 4-13 that "Significant cumulative impacts to public services would occur if cumulative development would overburden the public service agencies .... Implementation of the proposed project in combination cumulative development (sic) would result in the need for the provision of ... educational services ... with the construction of residential uses at the project site." However, the DEIR then concludes that "development fees would provide funding in order to help off-set capital improvements and maintenance to these services. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on public services." (DEIR, P. 4-13.) In the area of educational services, this conclusion that the cumulative impact of this and other projects would be less than significant is clearly wrong, as is documented by the District's own analysis of the cumulative impacts of urban infill projects on the District's capacity to house students generated by these infill projects. (March 4, 2014, letter to Luke Sims.) Likewise, the conclusion that development fees would provide adequate funding is also clearly wrong. Developer fees pay substantially less than half the cost of school facilities to house students from new developments, and this percentage continues to decrease. Consideration of Impacts from New Schools As noted above, the DEIR only considered impacts associated with the development of the Project. However, the DEIR did not address the impacts on elementary, middle and high schools if enrollment continues to grow in spite of the lack of capacity at any of the District's schools and whether or not improvements are made to the facilities themselves to accommodate increased student enrollment. Specifically, the District notes that Heritage Park, when considered along with cumulative 3-4 development from other infill projects, will result in a number of additional unstudied impacts. For example, there will be increased traffic resulting from students being required to travel from the new development to receptor schools (schools that will need to accommodate growth generated by the infill projects). Increased vehicular traffic, in turn, will impact air quality in and surrounding the new routes of travel. Further, because the District will need to accommodate students in existing facilities with capacity, students may be required to attend any of the District's schools within the District's boundaries. Accordingly, the attendant traffic and air quality impacts will be experienced City-wide. Once again, we appreciate the City's effort to work with the District and the developers to ensure that the impact of new development on schools is as minimal as possible. However, the District requests that the impacts identified above be addressed before proceeding with approval of the Heritage Park DEIR. For purposes of the Heritage Park DEIR Response, the District's contact person is Beverly Heironimus, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, phone: (925) 828-2551, Ext. 8041; email: heironimusbeverl dublinuscl org, Very truly yours, i Ste hen Hanke I I Superintendent AveN !B Hu Asst. Superintendent, Business Services Enclosure: March 4, 2014, letter to Luke Sims,AICP, Community Development Director cc: Marilyn J. Cleveland D-UBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRACT 7471 Larkdale Avenue,Dublin,CA 94588-1599 • 925-828-2551 • www.dublin.kl 2.ca.us All Du tin Stude r w7rl Become Lifelong Learners March 4, 2014 Luke Sims,AICP Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Re: Impact of Zone Changes Dear Mr. Sims, Thank you for your letter of February 7,2014,and for seeking Information from the Dublin Unified School District concerning the foreseeable Impacts of proposed land use/General Plan Amendments, Including but not limited to the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Amendment,on the DisMct's ability to house students generated by new residential development. As we previously discussed,the District's facilities are severely Impacted by the continuing Influx of additional students to the District resulting in virtually every school in the District being at or over capacity. This has required the addition of portable buildings each year to house the additional students. Last year,for instance, the District enrolled an additional 1000 new students requiring an additional 12 portable classrooms throughout the District. Anticipated Student Generation Overall,the project areas under consideration,Downtown Dublin Specific Plan,Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3, Fredericsenk,The Green at Park Place,The Groves Lot 3,Heritage Park,Schaefer Ranch Unit 3,and the Transit Center Site A-1,are proposed to generate a total of 975 students from 3,628 units,400 more than the current densities for those areas would generate. These are the"high"generation rates which District enrollment has consistently exceeded. The District anticipates that the Downtown Area General Plan Amendment alone will generate an additional 442 students,243 at the elementary level,93 at the middle school level,and 106 at the high school level. The District does not have the capacity to house these additional students,nor does It have the resources to increase that capacity sufficiently tD add enough classrooms to house these students. Current Capacity Looking just at the elementary level,Dublin Elementary School will be faced with 272 new students from these project areas,and It is already short forty seats,well over a full classroom. The District plans to add six portable and six permanent classrooms to this school to house growth anticipated WITHOUT these changes in density. Frederiksen Elementary School anticipates growth of 10 new students from the Transit Center Site A-1. Even without this growth,It has had to convert a computer laboratory to classroom space this year. Dougherty Elementary School will be faced with 69 additional students from these zone changes, Particularly from The Green at Park Place. Dougherty has already needed six portables this year for additional growth without these density changes. Kolb School will require space for an additional 181 students from Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3 and The Groves,Lot 3. Even without this additional enrollment,it has no available space with enrollment of over 1000 students. District Lack of Resources to Meet Capacity Needs The lack of a state bond for school construction has placed tremendous pressure on the District to rneet the challenges of continuing growth in residential population and vaulting student enrollment. A major step in addressing Dublin's current challenges for housing students and maintaining the quality of education provided Is a new state school bond. Imnicaly,the District has also been unable to assess development Impact fees that would fully these rntUgate the cost of housing new students from ese new projects. Under the Education Code provisions for dell a OpMent the impact fees,these fees were supposed to increase from meeting 50%of the cost of school facilities(Level 2) to l00%of the cost of new school facilities(Level 3)when state bond funds were no longer available. That change has been forestalled,leaving Impacted dls c s throughout the state,Including Dublin,struggling to meet the cost of school facillUes to house new students from new development without the state providing its 50%of the cost of those facilities. Mother option would be to remove the artificial limits on development Impact fees all together,returning the District,and other districts throughout the state,to the option of developers providing full mitigation of the impacts of new development on school capacity. Other options for mitigation of these Impacts include the formation of a Mello Roos Community Facility District through which future residents can repay a bond measure Issued by the CFD to pay for school facilities" funding through mitigation agreements with developers,or further Impacting the education of all students by the District being forced to Increase class sizes and decrease the teaming resources at schools in order.to house more students. Facilities do Impact leaming,and having adequate facilities Is critical to the quality of learning In Dublin's schools. We thank you again for the opportunity to address this issue before action by the Planning Commission or City Council and look forward to working with the City on ways to maintain and improve the quality of education provided in the District's schools while addressing the need for additional housing within the City. Sincerely, kV Helronimus Assistant Superintendent,Business Services Dublin Unified School District Kim McNeely Heritage Paris Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#3 from Mr. Stephen Hanke and Ms. Beverly Heironimus, Dublin Unified School District (DUSD), dated April 18, 2014 Response to Comment 3-1 — Reference to previous letter to Mr. Luke Sims, Community Development Director, City of Dublin, dated March 4, 2014. Comment noted. Response to Comment 3-2—Student Generation Rates The commenter states that the proposed project would generate approximately 36 students, eight more than the 28 assumed in the Draft EIR. As stated in the Draft EIR (page 3-132): "For planning purposes, a school district's projected student generation rates are based on dwelling units. Student generation rates are the average number of students residing in a home. It is also an indicator of the number of students that will come from new housing developments. According to the Dublin Unified School District's Demographic Study and Facilities Plan, 2011-2012, each new single-family home (large and medium lot single family home) generates an average of 0.75 K-12 students per home; medium density housing including single family residential with lots less than 4,000 square feet generates an average of 0.525 K-12 students per home; medium-high density attached housing (otherwise known as ''townhomes") generate an average 0.295 K-12 students per home; and a new high density residential (multifamily housing development) generates an average of 0.125 K-12 students per unit (DUSD 2012)." Based on the above documented student generation rates, the Draft EIR assumed a total of 28 (54 units x 0.525) K-12 students. As part of the preparation of the response to the DUSD's comment letter, the City researched and identified that a DUSD School Facility Needs Analysis (SFNA) was adopted by the DUSD Board of Trustees on August 28, 2012. This SFNA identified a student generation rate of 0.748 K-12 students for each new detached single family home on a large or medium size lot, and 0.847 K-12 students for each single family home on a small lot. Conservatively assuming a small lot generation factor, the proposed project would generate 46 K-12 students (54 x 0.847), or 10 more than identified in the comment letter. The Final EIR has been modified to reflect an assumed generation rate of 46 K-12 students associated with the proposed project. This increase represents less than one percent (>I%) of the total student capacity of 6,757 (SFNA, 2012). The difference of eighteen students from that identified in the Draft EIR is statistically insignificant and would have no effect on the development fees that will be paid as mitigation as these fees are based on actual the square footage of proposed residential and commercial buildings. Therefore, the impacts would remain less than significant as identified in the Draft EIR due to the Project's payment of development fees required under State law — See Response to Comment 3-3. Kimley»>Horn Page 2-4 Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment 3-3 — Project and Cumulative Impacts on the Dublin Unified School District The commenter states that the Draft EIR, when the project is considered in conjunction with other recently approved development projects, fails to adequately consider the project and cumulative impacts on enrollment and capacity limitations at schools within the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The impacts of the proposed project, including impacts on DUSD schools from increased enrollment, are identified in the Draft EIR. The conclusion of the Draft EIR is based on the current state law, which set per square-foot limits on school fees that may be assessed by school districts. The following is a detailed discussion regarding the legal standard for analyzing the potential impacts of proposed project on school districts under CEQA. State Funding and Developer Fees The DUSD is under the State government's jurisdiction, is subject to California Education Code regulations, and is under the governance of the State Board of Education. School capital facility funds come from various sources including State funding, State bonds, local General Obligation bonds, developer fees, surplus property sale proceeds, and School Facility Improvement and Community Facilities Districts (CFDs). Limited or no funding is available for school facilities from the federal government. Historically, the State has been responsible for passing legislation for the funding of construction of public schools. To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the State passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986. This bill allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Development impact fees are also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase Act, which requires school districts to contribute a matching share of costs for construction, modernization, and reconstruction projects. Senate Bill (SB) 50, which passed in 1998, provides a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program, and enables a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. The provisions of SB 50 allow the State to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school facilities, and modemize existing school facilities. SB 50 also establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities resulting from increased enrollment. Under this legislation, a school district could charge fees above the statutory cap only under specified conditions, and then only up to the amount of funds that the district would be eligible to receive from the State. The tradeoff for these funding opportunities is that the Legislature preempted the field of CEQA impacts and mitigations with respect to impacts related to "a district's ability to accommodate enrollment.'' (Government Code section 65995(e).) According to Section 65996 of the California Kimley»)Horn Page 2-5 Heritage Park Final EIR Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be 'full and complete school facilities mitigation': SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by the governing board of a school district depending upon certain conditions within a district. These three levels are as follows: Level l Level I fees are the base statutory fees. These amounts are the maximum that can be legally imposed upon new construction projects by a school district unless the district qualifies for a higher level of funding. Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, as of January 2008, the statutory maximum Level I school fees that may be levied by a school district on new development is a maximum of$2.97 per assessable square foot of residential construction and a maximum of $0.47 per square foot of enclosed and covered space for commercial/industrial development. These rates are established by the State Allocation Board, and may be increased to adjust for inflation based upon a statewide cost index for Class B construction. To implement Level I fees, the governing board of a school district must adopt a nexus study linking development impacts and the need for construction of new facilities. Although not standard, such studies are frequently referred to as Developer Fee Justification Study (DFJS). Level2 Level 2 fees allow the school district to impose developer fees above the statutory level, up to 50 percent of new school construction costs. To implement Level 2 fees, the governing board of the school district must adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) and meet other pre-requisites in accordance with Section 65995.6 of the California Government Code. The purpose of an SFNA is to determine the need for new school facilities attributable to growth from new residential development (California Government Code §65995.6). An SFNA documents that the district has met prerequisite eligibility tests and calculates the fee per square foot of new development. If the school district is eligible for State new construction funding, the State will match the Level 2 fees if funds are available. Level Level 3 fees apply if the State runs out of bond funds, allowing the school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of the school facility or mitigation minus any local dedicated school monies. If the State runs out of bond funds, the DUSD would be eligible to charge Level 3 fees. CEQA Limitations Under Senate Bill 50 SB 50 employs three primary means to preempt the field of development fees and mitigation measures related to school facilities. First, it authorizes developer fees, but KimleyoHorn Page 2-6 Heritage Paris Final EIR provides for a cap on the amount of fees, charges, dedications or other requirements which can be levied against new construction to fund construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Second, SB 50 removes denial authority from local agencies by prohibiting denial of legislative or adjudicative acts based on a developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation exceeding the capped fee amounts, or based on the inadequacy of school facilities. Third, it limits mitigation measures which can be required, under the California Environmental Quality Act or otherwise, to payment of the statutorily capped fee amounts and deems payment of these amounts to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation (See Chawanakee referenced below, citing to Miller& Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2007) § 25:49, pp. 25-213 to 25-214, fns. omitted.) Specifically, Subdivision (h) of Government Code section 65995 provides that payment of the statutory fee is "deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving [the] development of real property ... on the provision of adequate school facilities." Furthermore, a public agency may not refuse to approve the development of real property based on the developer's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amount authorized by statute. (Gov. Code, § 65995, subd. (i).) The developer fee approach is a common CEQA mitigation technique for a project's contribution to cumulative impacts (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines section 15130(a)(3).) Recent Legal Interpretation In the first major decision since the enactment of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998(a.k.a. "SB 50") to examine the complex interplay between the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the school impact fee limitations enacted as part of SB 50, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District held that in addition to prohibiting mitigation of impacts on school facilities beyond statutory school fees, the provisions of SB 50 allow land use agencies to exclude from their CEQA documentation any discussion or analysis of the impacts of new construction on school facilities in their CEQA documentation. (Chawanakee Unified School District v County of Madera, et al., (201 1) 196 Ca1.App.4th 1016) Background SB 50 implemented a new state funding scheme for school facilities, and expanded the school impact fee statutes to allow districts to charge additional statutory square footage fees on new development in certain circumstances. SB 50 also took away the ability of land use authorities to condition development approvals on the payment by developers of amounts in excess of statutory fees, to offset the impact of development on local school facilities. SB 50 overturned several key court decisions that collectively had formed the basis for school districts to challenge new development through the CEQA process. The Chawanakee case arose out of the approval by the County of Madera ("County'') of a large residential development that was anticipated to bring 3,200 new students into the Chawanakee Unified School District ("District''). Presumably, though unstated, the District lacked sufficient school capacity to house the anticipated students, and school impact fees KimleyoHorn Page 2-7 Heritage Park Final EIR were insufficient to provide the needed facilities. Throughout the lengthy environmental review process, the District objected to the County's Environmental Impact Report ("EIR''), citing numerous defects in the EIR. The County considered the District's objections, but approved the project. In challenging the project approval, the District contended that SB 50 did not eliminate the requirement under CEQA for full disclosure within the EIR of significant environmental effects of development on school services. The District argued that SB 50 did not affect requirements that an EIR contain a full analysis and disclosure of school-related environmental effects of a project, in order to consider alternative mitigation measures. In contrast, the County contended that SB 50 strictly limits the County's consideration, as well as mitigation, of school impacts. Decision The court held that the reference in Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a) ("section 65996(a)") to statutory fees being the "exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts" meant that the inclusion of a description and analysis of impacts on school facilities in the EIR was not required. Because the "methods" set forth in section 65996(a) are ''exclusive," the provision eliminates the need for an EIR to contain a description and analysis of a development's impacts on school facilities. As a result, the court rejected the District's claim that the EIR approved by the County violated CEQA because it lacked any analysis of the environmental consequences for the existing school facilities that would be forced to accommodate hundreds of students beyond current overcrowded conditions. The court also examined the phrase ''impacts on school facilities,'' and determined that the Legislature's use of the word ''on" (as opposed to "related to'') narrowed the applicability of the statute by limiting the impacts excluded from consideration and mitigation under the provision. Consequently, a project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. Applying this interpretation to the dispute at hand, the court agreed with the District and concluded that an impact on traffic, even if that traffic is near a school facility and related to getting students to and from the facilities, is not an impact ''on school facilities" for the purposes of section 65996(a). Therefore, such an impact must be considered in the EIR. Finally, the court also noted that the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the construction of new facilities on the non-school physical environment, such as dust that degrades air quality and noise caused by construction activity, were not "impacts on school facilities'' and were not excluded from consideration in the EIR. Endings The court's decision attempts to clarify the language of section 65996(a), as amended by SB 50, and to assist districts in understanding the legal standard to which they may hold their local land use agencies when new projects come forward. The court distinguished what kinds of environmental impacts on schools, students and facilities are required in Kimley»)Horn Page 2-8 Heritage Park Final EIR CEQA documentation, and which are not. As articulated by the court, SB 50 strictly limits the disclosure, discussion and analysis of the physical impacts of new development on school grounds, school buildings and "any school-related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment." However, impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities (such as traffic, air quality, and noise), are not excused from consideration and mitigation and must be included in the EIR. Local Funding Measure C In 2004, the citizens of the City of Dublin passed Measure C, a Dublin Unified School District ("District") bond measure. Measure C authorizes the District to issue school bonds in series over time in aggregate principal amount not to exceed $184,000,000 at an interest rate not exceeding the statutory maximum. The purpose of the bonds is to finance the District projects and purposes set forth in the ballot measure and to qualify for state matching grants for school construction projects. Measure C requires an annual performance and financial audit pursuant to Education Code Section 15264 et seq.) and provides for the appointment of a citizens' oversight committee pursuant to Education Code Section 15278 et seq. to review and report on whether the funds are spent in accordance with the measure. As stated in the arguments for the (voter) bond measure, as registered with Alameda County, "Measure C will accommodate the growing student population by expanding and renovating necessary buildings at all school sites and by developing new state-of-the-art high school facilities.'' According to the Measure C Bond Update Progress Report (DUSD, March 2013), the DUSD had expended $131M in bond funds through June 2012 and has approximately $53M remaining. The final sale of Measure C funds was anticipated in 2013, but was anticipated to be sold in 2015 as a result of depression in assessed value. Current estimates of the final Measure C Bonds indicate the final sale may not occur until 2017. Economically driven delays in Measure C bond sales continue to necessitate the Board of Trustees to prioritize limited resources. Key District priorities continue to move forward at Murray Elementary School, Wells Middle School and Dublin High School. Measure E On June 26, 2012 the DUSD Board of Trustees approved and certified that Measure E (aka Dublin Quality Education and Safe Classrooms Measure) was approved by more than 55% of the votes cast at the Bond Election on June 5, 2012 (62% voted to approve). Measure E is a bond that allows the DUSD to borrow $99 million to finance school facilities projects in the measure. The bond allows for the collection of $29 for every 1 http://www.smat-tvcter.otg/2004/II/02/ca/alm/meal/C/ KimleyoHorn Page 2-9 Heritage Park Final EIR $1,000 in assessed property value. In a written statement regarding the bond, Dr. Stephen Hanke, Superintendent of the DUSD stated that Measure E will: • Protect quality education in core subjects like math, science, reading and writing • Update science and computer labs for students • Provide up-to-date computers and academic technology • Update classrooms and facilities to meet current fire, emergency and safety codes • Prevent student overcrowding • Improve energy efficiency to provide ongoing savings to fund instruction and teachers Passage of Measure E also qualified the DUSD to levy a justified Level 2 fee, based on their adopted SFNA, which was approved by the DUSD Board of Trustees on August 28, 2012. This Level 2 fee is currently $4.79 per square foot of new residential area. Conclusion Because development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be "full and complete school facilities mitigation", cumulative impacts would not be applicable per the developer fees that are imposed upon each new development. For the proposed project, the applicant will be required to pay the DUSD approximately $646,650 in Level 2 fees for the single-family residential units and approximately $6,580 in Level I fees for the commercial building. Additionally, individual homeowners will be required to pay fees associated with the financing of both the Measure C and Measure E bonds. DUSD asserts that the project impact on schools is clearly not less than significant and that developer fees are inadequate mitigation. The existing discussion in the DEIR and the expanded discussion above directly refutes both assertions. The Legislature has preempted the filed in both respects and determined that statutory development fees constitute full and complete mitigation on these matters. Furthermore, the proposed project was determined to be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan (updated May 2013) and the City's Capital Improvement Program and all cumulative impacts addressed in the Draft EIR were determined to be less than significant. Response to Comment 3-4— Indirect Cumulative Impacts The commenter notes that the Draft EIR only considered impacts associated with the development of the project, and did not consider other impacts including increased traffic resulting from students being required to travel from the proposed project to the receptor schools, and the associated impacts to air quality from these trips. Indeed, in the case of Chawanakee Unified School District vs County of Madera, described above, the court determined that impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not Kimley»)Horn Page 2-10 Heritage Park Final EIR school facilities (such as traffic, air quality, and noise), are not excused from consideration and mitigation and must be included in the EIR. The phrase "impacts on school facilities" used in Senate Bill 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. As a matter of statutory interpretation, the court concluded that the prepositional phrase "on school facilities" limits the type of impacts that are excused from discussion or mitigation to the adverse physical changes to the school grounds, school buildings and "any school- related consideration relating to a school district's ability to accommodate enrollment." (Gov. Code, § 65996, subd. (c).) Therefore, the court ruled that the project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. Based on the Chawanakee case, the City examined whether there were any indirect traffic impacts on school facilities. The District says it plans to add new classrooms to accommodate existing deficiencies; it is not clear that the modest increase in students from the Project would require any additional facilities beyond those already planned. In any case, in the Heritage Park Draft EIR, the traffic analysis indicated that there would be a net reduction in the number of average daily traffic trips. Specifically it stated the following: Transportation and Circulation - As shown in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions, the proposed project would result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the trip generation for the existing development. Table 4.1:Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions s ITE Description Code Size Units Trips Daily AM PM Existing Conditions General Office 710 I 1 0,000 SF I,4 I I 207 202 Proposed Trip Generation General Office 710 14,000 SF 294 39 94 Single Family 210 54 DU 517 41 55 Residential Total 81 1 80 149 Delta -600 -127 -53 Source:RBF Consulting 2013 Kimley>»Horn Page 2-11 Heritage Park Final EIR Given the change in land use from the existing office to largely residential, commute patterns during the AM and PM peak hours would generally be opposite. However, the relatively few number of additional students (approximately 46) traveling to three or more different schools would result in a negligible increase in traffic adjacent to school roadways and intersections, and there would be no impact. The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would have no impact on transportation, and correspondingly, no impact on air quality associated with transportation. There would also be no impact associated with a concentration of vehicle emissions around schools and the increase in trips to these facilities would be negligible. Finally, no construction is proposed in the immediate area of a school, and in any case, the Project would be required to implement the DER mitigations for construction noise and emissions to protect sensitive receptors in the area. Kimley>»Horn Page 2-12 Comment Letter #4 April 15, 2014 Mike Porto Community Development City of Dublin Dear Mr. Porto, I am writing today as a representative of the Dublin Historical Preservation Association (DHPA), In my capacity as President of the board of directors I have had an opportunity to review and discuss with our board the proposed Draft EIR for the project known as Heritage Park. As it sits directly across Donlon Way from the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums, it is an important component of this very historic area of the Dublin community. Having met with the developer for the project and studied the Draft EIR DHPA has still three areas of concern we would like to comment on for your consideration. Parking remains a concern for our board. We understand the vision of shared parking, and that certainly can work depending on who is sharing. If it were park guests and a business center that is closed on the week-end that would make more sense. Unfortunately,when you add fifty plus housing units to the mix, parking demands grow greater.We do understand the plan for space for two cars in the garage and two in the driveway, and while on paper it looks really good,the reality of 4-1 living in four and five bedroom homes is that usually there are older children as well many visitors or house guests that also need to be accommodated. The seven additional curbside spaces on the east side of Donlon Way that will be added will most likely be used by the residents. Our suggestion would be to include plans for shared parking at other sites close to the park as well.There are businesses to the west of the park and across Dublin Blvd. that have space that could be designated for overflow parking during Heritage activities and events. Our parking concerns tie closely to our concern for the intersection of 4_2 Dublin Blvd. and Donlon Way. Traffic coming off the hill and heading east mixing with drivers making a right turn onto Dublin Blvd. and the left turn off of Dublin Blvd. onto Donlon Way creates an adventure at best. When you add the mix of visitors who might also be trying to cross 4-2 Dublin Blvd. on foot to enter the park, we feel a dangerous situation is (cont'd.) only time away.We would like you to consider options that would make this area safer for pedestrians and drivers. Our last concern deals with the families living at Heritage Park. No where on the plan did we see any kind of tot lot or play area for younger children. We do not feel that the Heritage Park and Museums is 4-3 equipped to handle the children living across the street. These families have no playground with appropriate equipment set up for 50-100 children who could potentially be living in close proximity. Developing at least a tot lot might help families with small children in search of some play space. These comments are not made in an effort to drive away a project that offers many benefits to the city,but rather an opportunity to share concerns that we feel need to be addressed to make this project work in harmony with the wonderful investment the City and the residents of Dublin have put forth with the Heritage Park and Museums. Thank you for your consideration.We look forward to your comments. :4: Steven L. Lockhart President, D.H.P.A. Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#4 from Mr. Steven Lockhart, Dublin Historical Preservation Association (DHPA), dated April 15, 2014 Response to Comment 4-1 —Parking As noted in the Draft EIR, primary access to the project site would be provided off Donlon Way and would include an internal network of streets (Streets A through E). The residential component of the proposed project would include a total of 250 parking spaces, including 108 garage spaces (two per house), 108 driveway spaces (two per house), and 34 guest spaces. Additionally, six new publicly accessible parking spaces would be constructed along the east side of Donlon Way. This parking allocation of 250 residential parking spaces exceeds the City of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type by 99 spaces which requires 151 spaces, as shown in the following: Residential Use Type Number of Parking Spaces Required Lots of 4,000 square feet or 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling plus one on-street parking space per less dwelling unit within 150 feet of that dwelling unit. Lots greater than 4,000 2 in enclosed garage per dwelling`. square feet Source: City of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.080 Parking Requirements by Use Type,May 2014. The parking area for the proposed commercial building would be shared with the two adjacent properties located north of the project site (Church of Christ and the Frankie, Johnnie, and Luigi restaurant) adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. The parking lot would include 71 standard spaces; 40 compact spaces; and six accessible spaces for a total of 1 18 parking spaces. The project applicant proposes to enter into a shared parking agreement with the church and restaurant to share these spaces, taking into account hourly and day of week parking demands between the uses. With the primary hours of commercial use during the daytime, and the primary hours of the restaurant and church as evening and weekend, a shared parking program is expected to be adequate and makes more effective use of the parking lot. The shared parking agreement will be considered as part of the project approval process. Shared use parking is allowed under the City of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.050 F — Parking Reductions for Shared Parking. In such cases, the Community Development Director may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements (from the sum of the parking required by each use type) in compliance with Chapter 8.102, Minor Use Permit. Reductions for shared parking may be granted if the Community Development Director finds that each of the following standards is met: 1. A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greatest parking demands of the participating use types and to ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency. KimleyoHorn Page 2-13 Heritage Park Final EIR 2. Satisfactory evidence is provided that the use types, by their natures and operating times, will not conflict with each other. 3. Overflow parking will not adversely affect any adjacent use. 4. Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Community Development Director are executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are maintained and that uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking facilities remain for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements. Staffs preliminary review indicates that the four required findings can be met. Response to Comment 4-2 — Unsafe pedesthan/vehicular traffic Conditions at the Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way err The intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way is outside of the project boundary and would not be modified as part of the proposed project. As shown in the figure below, this intersection includes special colored treatment on the pavement to clearly identify pedestrian crossings on all four segments. This pedestrian treatment is more extensive than most intersections in the City and has been constructed according to city and state design standards. r KimleyoHorn Page 2 I4 Heritage Park Final EIR Additionally, as noted in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions of the Draft FIR, the proposed project would result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the trip generation for the existing development. Therefore, the project itself will result in less average daily trips at this and other intersections. Given the existing improvements, pedestrians from the proposed project or otherwise, will be able to cross safely at the Donlon Way/Dublin Boulevard intersection using the existing pedestrian crosswalks. Response to Comment 4-3 — Park Space and Recreation While the City does not believe nor endorse the statement that Heritage Park and Museum is not equipped to handle children living across the street, the project applicant has agreed to install a "tot-lot" for children living in the residential units in the proposed project, There is adequate room in the project for this added feature which has been included in the final project design as shown in the Site Development Review drawings to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. KimleyoHorn Page 2-15 Comment Letter#5 April 16,2014 RECEIVE[) City of Dublin,Community Development Dept. APR 17 2014 Attn: Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 DUBLIN PLANNING Dear Mr. Porto I have reviewed the draft EIR for the proposed Heritage Park project and wish to offer my comments on the document and some concerns on the impacts of the development. As a Docent and member of the Heritage Guild at the Heritage Park and Museums across the street,I have a great interest in preserving and enhancing the historic nature of this area. I am also on the Board of DHPA and support the areas of concern expressed in a separate letter sent from the Board President. I have great concern of adequate parking for both the residents, the restaurant,the church, and users of the Heritage Park and Museums. Conflicts can arise with the planned shared parking. If residents or business users find it convenient to use parking on Donlon Way, this will impact available parking for weddings,funeral services,or other reserved events 5-1 at City facilities in the park as well as for scheduled special events. Extra resident and guest parking should be provided within the project complex as well as the City looking for other possible parking space outside the park for special events,etc. The aesthetics of the area will change with the removal of many of the trees and with the homes lining Donlon Way being much closer to the street than the current office complex. While the design of the homes facing the street look nice,it would be much nicer if they were set-back further from the street to retain some of the previous 5-2 ambiance. It would also be great if at least one or two of the"Heritage"walnut trees on Donlon Way could be preserved as part of the history of the area,possibly near the entrance of the project. There may be one or two in better condition than the others. I am pleased to see that a number of the existing trees along San Ramon Rd before the freeway on--ramp will be retained on the outside of the planned project sound-wall. Great effort should made to keep them healthy during construction to soften the visual effect 5-3 when entering or departing Dublin. More native trees and less ornamental trees should be planted on site. Also any plan for sycamore trees should consider that they are water loving trees. There is no mention in the EIR of the historical marker for the Murray-Green Homes located on the east side of the office complex. The developer say he plans to move it to 5-4 the project entrance,but this plan should be reflected in the EIR. Another concern is the building of homes right along the 25 foot buffer from the Calaveras Fault Line. While legal,this assumes a lot for the accuracy of the assessments 5-5 to the potential homeowners. This is a potentially significant impact to the project that has been mitigated to less than§ignificant by the seismic assessments performed. How i will this information be publicized to the potential homeowner? I would visit a business 5-5 located at that distance from the fault line,but I don't think I would want to live there! I (cont'd.) There is one glaring error in the Draft FIR that evaluates existing and proposed water demand that needs to be corrected. Especially since water usage is such a hot topic these days. Table 2-1 states that for 54 units of medium density residential, the 225 gallons per day per dwelling results in a usage of 1,215 gallons per day total,instead of 12,150 gallons per day.A major typo! I also wonder what homes with 4 to 5 bedrooms(with 5-6 kids) only uses 225 gallons per day. The table also suggests an existing usage at the office park at 11,000 gpd interior and 20,625 gpd for the exterior! In the 30 year history of the office complex have the numbers ever been that high? Have they been watering the paved parking lot each day?This table makes no sense! How many other inaccuracies of information are like this? There is an assessment for increased demand for educational facilities(impact 3.10-3) that states that the 54 residential units would generate 28 students. That means for family homes of 4 to 5 bedrooms, half of them(or more) will be occupied by a family of two. 5-7 So there will be no impact on the schools! These homes are not 2 bedroom condos or townhouses. There is a big mismatch with the specified criteria and reality. I guess that's why they think that will be no major impact on kids using the Heritage Park across the street. Many of my concerns and comments could be resolved with a less dense housing project. More on-site parking could be provided;a set-back from Donlon Way could be achieved; less existing trees would need removal; homes would not need to be located so close to the fault line;an on-site tot-lot could be provided for recreation for young children;less impact on schools and other city provided services,etc. 5-8 Only two project alternatives were provided in the Draft FIR: a No Project Alternative and a Retail/Office Alternative. Possibly the proposed project could be revised to a less dense housing layout or a third project alternative be provided for less housing. I know it is an economic issue to be viable, but one should take another look at the options. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Richard Guarienti Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#5 from Mr. Richard Guarienti, dated April 16, 2014 Response to Comment 5-1 — Parking See response to Comment 4-1, above. The proposed project is not required to provide parking for special events associated with Heritage Park. When special events have occurred there in the past, cars were parking on the project site, which is private property, without the consent of the property owner. Furthermore, the proposed project is proposing to construct six (6) new (additional) publicly accessible parking spaces along the east side of Donlon Way. Response to Comment 5-2—Aesthetics and Tree Removal on Donlon Way The aesthetic appearance of the proposed residential units on Donlon Way and the surrounding area were analyzed in Section 3.1 Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. The Draft FIR found that the proposed project would be consistent with the development standards and design guidelines as identified in the Dublin V7 1age Historic Area Specific Plan and would be more aesthetically appealing than the existing office building complex (see Impact 3.1-2 starting on page 3-9). Regarding preservation of''one or two'' of the walnut trees on Donlon Way, the Final FIR has been amended as they were erroneously identified as Heritage Trees which they are not. Furthermore, a Preliminary Tree Report was prepared by Hort Science (October 2013) to access the condition of the trees on the project site. The report noted that: "Twelve (12) Calif. black walnuts were present. Trees were variable in development with trunk diameters from 6'' to 57" (#5). Tree condition was variable: 4 trees were poor, 6 were fair and #25 (39'') and #41 (14") were good. Larger walnuts had been impacted by development. This species is intolerant of root severance and other changes associated with grading. In addition, trees #I — 5 were located below overhead power lines and had been pruned to maintain clearance." Based on this assessment and the fact that these California black walnut trees are not listed by the City of Dublin as Heritage Trees, they would be removed. Furthermore, PG&E were planning to eventually remove these trees due to interference with the underground gas lines. To help off-set the impacts to the Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Paris and Museums. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting six trees (36" box, species to be determined) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs KimleyoHorn Page 2-16 Heritage Park Final EIR would be planted on the project site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. The extensive landscaping will provide a pleasing complement to the historic park, the residential edge and to motorists in the area. Response to Comment 5-3 —Trees Along San Ramon Road and On-site Landscaping Comment noted. The existing tree along San Ramon outside of the project sound wall will be retained and impacts during construction will be minimized during construction consistent with requirements as described in Section 7.56.090 Tree Protection of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. The selection of trees and other landscaping identified in the proposed project are addressed as part of the site development review process for consistency with requirements as described in Chapter 8.88 Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations of the City of Dublin Municipal Code. As part of the Site Development Review, a lush landscape pallet is proposed which will greatly accentuate the area. The proposed on-site landscaping conforms to the City's plant materials listing. Response to Comment 5-4 — Relocation of the Historical Marker for the Murray-Green Homes The historical marker for the Murray-Green Homes is currently located on the west side of Building D, approximately 150 feet from the sidewalk fronting the east side of Donlon Way. The project applicant has agreed to relocate this mariner to the west side of the proposed office building and adjacent to the sidewalk. This location will be more visible to the public and will be consistent with the two existing markers located at the southwest and southeast corners of Donlon Way and Dublin Boulevard. This marker relocation has been included in the final project design as shown in the Site Development Review drawings to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Response to Comment 5-5 —Calaveras Fault Line and Buffer Potential impacts associated with the potential for fault rupture were described in Impact 3.4-2 starting on page 3-64 of the Draft FIR. The analysis found that the middle third of the proposed project is located within a currently designated AP Earthquake Fault Zone for the Calaveras Fault. A single active fault trace extends across the project site at the approximate location shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone. The previous AP fault trenching performed to the north and south of the project site provides adequate coverage to show that only one active fault trace from the Calaveras fault extends across the project site. Recent fault trenching performed at the project site by SFB Engineering (20 13) revealed that the active fault trace forms a straight linear line across the project site and that it is well constrained to that location. Soils observed in the trenching showed evidence of four fault rupture events, the most recent event having occurred approximately 365 years ago and that the fault rupture recurrence interval between those events is tentatively on the order Kimley)»Horn Page 2-17 Heritage Park Final EIR of about 400 to 600 years. Future fault rupture is most likely to occur along previous traces of fault rupture. Future fault rupture is expected to occur along the straight linear fault projection shown in Figure 3.4-3: Habitable Building Setback Zone. The proposed project includes a 25-foot fault set-back zone where no residential or commercial development is proposed in accordance with the recommended set-back by SFB Engineering. In addition, future development within the project site would be performed in accordance with the latest edition of the CBC, the City Building Code, and policies of the City of Dub/in Genera/ 11/an. Compliance with the statutory and design requirements would ensure that no significant impacts related to fault zone rupture would occur. Based on this analysis, the Draft FIR reasonably concluded that the potential for fault rupture is considered a less than significant impact with incorporation of the 25-foot setback into the design of the proposed project and the construction conformance requirements, and no mitigation is required. Response to Comment 5-6—Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand See response to Comment 2-1, above. Response to Comment 5-7— Project Impacts on DUSD Schools See response to Comment 3-2, above. Furthermore, children as well as any other person is allowed and encouraged to use the adjacent Heritage Park, as this is a public park and a community asset for all residents and guests to the City of Dublin. Response to Comment 5-8—Project Density and Alternatives The commenter suggests that a less density alternative be considered in the FIR. Section 15126.6 Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project requires that an FIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An FIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An FIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency (in this case the City of Dublin) is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. As discussed in Section 3.8 Land Use Planning of the Draft FIR determined that the proposed project would not conflict with applicable City of Dublin land use plans, policies Kimley)»Horn Page 2-18 Heritage Park Final EIR or regulations. Specifically, Impact 3.8-2 analyzed potential impacts to the City of Dublin General Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, and the City of Dublin Zoning Code and determined impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, there are a number of project objectives (as described in Section 2.5 Purpose and Objectives) of the Draft EIR that support the proposed project. Given this analysis, it was determined that a less dense residential development project was not required under CEQA Section 15126.6 as it would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Additionally, a less-dense residential development would not feasibly enhance or augment the most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. Page 2-19 Kimley>»Horn Comment Letter #6 RECEIVED APR 0 9 2014 7 April 2014 DUBLIN PLANNING City of Dublin,Community Development Department Attn: Mike Porto, Consultant Project Manager 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Report(DEIR)Heritage Park EIR(State Clearing House Number 201 3092043) Dear Mr. Porto, I believe the proposed project, as described,does not adequately consider two important impacts. These impacts should be further considered before moving forward. The project will have a major impact on traffic at the corner of Donlon Way and Dublin Blvd. Currently heavy traffic on Dublin Blvd.exceeds speed limits and the large number of U- turns at the Donlon intersection increases the potential for accidents. This suggests that the introduction of more cars turning into and out of the Donlon Way intersection will increase the risk of pedestrian and vehicle accidents. This is especially the case since the intersection has no 6-1 stoplight or sign. The traffic calculations done in the report are not based on actual traffic patterns at the intersection. A new traffic analysis of the intersection should be done before the project's approval. It should determine how the project will affect traffic and what mitigations could be introduced to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety. The project will put a number of houses almost directly on an active fault line. Given the 6-2 increasing probability of a major earthquake on this fault,the proposed offset does not seem sufficient. If you have any questions,please contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Si cerely, Steven Minniear 11902 West Vomac Road Dublin,CA 94568 i i I Heritage Park Final EIR Response to Comment Letter#6 from Mr. Steven Minniear dated April 7, 2014 Response to Comment 6-1 — Unsafe pedestrian/vehicular traffic Conditions at the Intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Donlon Way See response to Comment 4-2, above. Response to Comment 6-2—Calaveras Fault Line and Buffer See response to Comment 5-5, above. Kimley)))Horn Page 2-20 Heritage Paris Final EIR 3 Changes to the Draft EIR Changes to the Draft EIR are shown on the following pages. Kimley)))Horn Page 3-1 Heritage Park DFaft Final EIR Executive Summary Table S-I: Executive Summary of Project Impacts Project Impacts Level of Significance it Measures Resulting Level of Without Mitigation Significance Aesthetics Impact 3.1-1: Damage Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant to Scenic Resources along Scenic Highways Impact 3.1-2: Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Degradation of the Visual Character of the Project Site and Surrounding Area Impact 3.1-3: Light and Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Glare Air Quality Impact 3.2-1: Short- Potentially MM 3.2-1 a: Implement Short-term Less than Significant term Construction Significant Construction Best Management Emissions Practices MM 3.2-1 b: Implement NOX Reduction Measures Impact3.2-2: Long- Potentially MM 3.2-2: Implement only natural Less than Significant Term Operational Significant gas hearths in residential units Emissions—Regional Emissions Impact 3.2-3: Long- Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Significant Term Operational Emissions- Localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) Impact 3.2-4; Long- Potentially MM 3.2-4: Provide Upgraded Less than Significant Term Operational Significant Ventilation Systems. Exposure to Emissions—Toxics Air Odorous Emissions Contaminants Impact 3.2-5: Exposure Less than Significant No mitigation measures are Less than Significant to Odorous Emissions necessary Impact 3.2-6: Long- ;gin Ne mitigatieR measures are Less than Significant Term Operational Siga+f+c-aatPotentially MM 3.2-2: Implement Emissions—Clean Air Significant only natural gas hearths in Plan Consistency. residential units Cultural Resources Impact 3.3-1: Historical Less than Significant No mitigation measures necessary Less than Signif cant Resources Kimley»)Horn Page ES-3 Heritage Park DFafFinal EIR Project Description 2.8 Infrastructure Improvements Stormwater The project site is divided into two drainage areas. These drainage areas will be maintained with the proposed improvements. Drainage Area I is 0.9 acres and it made up of the existing church and restaurant buildings. The total flow generated by Area I was estimated to be 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13). Total post development flow was estimated to be 3.4 cfs, for a net increase of 1.7 cfs. Area I discharges into an existing 27" storm drain main located in Dublin Boulevard, which has a full flow capacity of 17.0 cfs. At present, it is not known yet if there is sufficient capacity in this 27" storm drain to accommodate the additional flow. The project applicant plans to conduct a more details analysis as part of final design to determine if there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm drain main. If not, a portion of the runoff generated by Area I would be detained within a planned bioretention area to ensure that post development flows do not exceed pre-development flows off site. Drainage Area 2 is 7.1 acres and includes the existing office buildings and parking lots. The total flow generated by Area 2 was estimated to be 1 1.7 cfs. Stormwater from Area 2 would be retained in one of two bio-retention ponds before being discharged into an existing 24'' storm drain pipe, located in the southeast corner of the site. This pipe connects to an existing concrete lined channel (Dublin Creek) located within the Caltrans right-of-way. The full flow capacity of the 24'' outlet pipe was determined to be 12.4 cfs. The total post-development flows generated by Area 2 was determined to be 8.5 cfs, or a reduction of 3.2 cfs (Carlson, Barbee Gibson, 1 1/24/13).The preliminary infrastructure improvement plans are shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan and Figure 2-9: Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan. Potable Water The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public water main located in Donlon Way. Water Demand As shown in Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand, the proposed project would result in man increase in the water demand of 1):6,669721.9 gallons per day as compared to the existing commercial/office uses at the project site. Kimley}>)Horn Page 2-5 Heritage Park 9mft Final EIR Project Description Table 2-1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand Land Use.. _ Unrts;and°Acres' V�later Generation,fate. Water Generation Exis6ng Land Use Commercial/Office 0.10 gallons per day/square 1 10,000 square feet(interior) and 4-P-43 12.5 1 1,000 gpd (interior) feet gallons per day per acre 20 2,062.5 gpd 6.6 Acres (exterior) (exterior) Proposed Land Use Commercial/Office 14,000 Square 0.10 gallons per day/square 1,400 gallons per day Feet feet(interior) and 342--5312.5 (interior) 0.75 Acres gallons per day per acre 2-344234.4 gallons per exterior day exterior Medium Density 54 units 225 gallons per day/dwelling -1-,212,150 gallons per Residential unit day Subtotal 2,4-t-513,550 gpd (Interior) 1,344234.4 gpd Exterior )2,550 gpd (Interior) {4 }1,828.1 gpd (Exterior) Net Difference 721.9 gpd 1. Rates from DRSD do not take into account recycled water use. Source: DRSD and RBF Consulting,2013. Sanitary Sewer As shown in Figure 2-8: Preliminary Utility Plan, the proposed project would connect to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon Way. The existing sewer is approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and therefore the proposed project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site sewer system would serve Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main located within Donlon Way. A separate sewer lateral would be installed for the commercial office building, which would connect to the existing main in Donlon Way. 2.9 Construction Activities Demolition, Grading and Excavation The proposed project would include grading and site preparation activities within the entire project site. This would include the demolition the two-story commercial/office buildings totaling and removal of asphalt and existing utilities, generating approximately 2,500 tons of mixed material. Figure 2-11: Demolition Plan presents the proposed demolition plan. Approximately 15,700 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the project site in order to elevate the grade on the north, east, and west parts of the project site. The proposed project also includes the construction of several retaining walls located throughout the Page 2-6 Kimley)))Horn Heritage Park DrA Final EIR Project Description project site including one at the southerly and easterly boundaries, which would be part of the proposed sound walls. The preliminary grading plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-11: Preliminary Grading Plan. Tree Removal and Landscaping Based on the Preliminary Tree Report prepared by HortScience (October 2013) for the project applicant, the project site contains 137 trees. Of these, 33 were rated as Excellent, 37 Good, 40 Fair and 27 Poor. There are 19 Heritage trees as defined by Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code (Heritage Tree Ordinance). 18 of these Heritage trees are Coast redwood and one is a Coast live oak. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25- inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of$19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 44six trees (36" box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. 2.10 Requested Actions, Entitlements, and Required Approvals Initial entitlements required for development at the project site in the Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan include the following actions to be taken by the Dublin City Council: E/R Certification: Certification of the Heritage Park Environmental Impact Report (FIR), including findings that identify significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and mitigation measures that must be implemented as part of the Project, which will be reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and imposed as conditions of approval on subsequent discretionary approvals. This action will be adopted by resolution. Genera/Plan Amendment For the proposed residential portion of the project site, the City of Dublin Genera/Plan will be amended to: 1) Change the text to reflect the new General Plan designation from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential and 2) Change the General Plan Land Use Map from Retail/Office to Medium Density Residential for the residential portion of the project site. Kimley»)Horn Page 2-7 Heritage Park Final HEIR Aesthetics within the planning area, which includes future development at the project site. With implementation of these design standards and guidelines, the proposed project is not anticipated to degrade the visual character of the project site and surrounding uses and is therefore considered a less than significant impact. The existing two-story office buildings were constructed between 1978 and 1981 and generally look dated and to be of poor architectural character. These buildings were constructed with wood siding and flat roofs. Perimeter balconies surround most of the office spaces resulting in dark void spaces on the ground level. The facades have little architectural detail and consist of long, unarticulated "walls The buildings are set back from the street and contain large open surface parking. From an urban design perspective, the project site is not pedestrian-friendly and would be considered incompatible with the City's design standards as described in the General P lan Community Design and Sustainability Element as well as the development standards and design guidelines as described in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. The proposed project has been designed in accordance with the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. The proposed 54 single family residential homes would be two stories and comprised of Craftsman and American Farmhouse style. Architectural elements and details are consistent with these architectural styles providing variation in building form and providing an appropriate scale with surrounding land uses (e.g. Heritage Park and Museums). Proposed architectural details include the use of front and upstairs patios and the use of different building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. The proposed two-story 14,000 square foot commercial office would have a wrap-around porch element, with low sloping roof planes, exposed rafter ends, and trellis work. A lobby entry at the center of the building would be comprised of a covered trellis and gable roof. An outdoor patio is also incorporated to one side, framed with a low river rock wall. The second level of the commercial building would have gable elements and sloping roofs. Mechanical equipment would be screened by the sloping roof around the perimeter. The bottom floor of the commercial office building would have river rock at the base, wall shingles at the ground level, board and battens for the second level, and a composition roof. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal Plan, the proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are Heritage trees. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. Page 3-10 Kimley>))Horn Heritage Paris DFa€ Final EIR Aesthetics As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting 13-six trees (36" box, species to be determined) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. The overall change in the visual character of the project site from commercial/office uses to a combination of residential and commercial/office uses would result in a change to the character of the project site. However, the proposed project would be considered a beneficial change in that it would be more consistent with the design guidelines and historic-contextual design intended in the Dub/in Vi//age Historic Area Specific Plan and thereby, would complement the surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the degradation of the visual character of the project site, which would be considered a less than significant impact. No mitigation measures are necessary. Light and Glare Impact 3.1-3: The project site and its surroundings are currently developed with buildings and site improvements that currently generate daytime and night-time light and glare. Additional sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would be introduced with implementation of the proposed project. The Dublin Vllage Historic Area Specific Plan includes design guidelines to reduce light and glare. With implementation of these design guidelines, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to light and glare. Implementation of the proposed project result in a slight increase in daytime and nighttime light and glare. The main sources of daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from structures with reflective surfaces, such as windows. The main sources of nighttime light and glare would be from additional lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and external building lights from proposed residential uses, parking lot lights, street lighting, site lighting, lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., vehicle headlights), and any new security lighting associated with the new commercial building. The Dublin V//age Historic Area Specific Plan includes design guidelines that address lighting within the project site, including, site lighting (e.g. ensuring that lighting is directed and shielded) and glare (e.g. designing lighting so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is controlled. The proposed project would be required to comply with these lighting standards by demonstrating the proposed exterior lighting is non-intrusive while still providing an adequate amount of light. Compliance with the design guidelines would ensure that the proposed project does not introduce substantial light and glare which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Kimley»#Horn Page 3-11 Heritage Park Final DFa#EIR Land Use and Planning Policy G - Encourage the diversity of garage Consistent. The single-family residential homes orientation and setbacks, architectural styles, building would be comprised of Craftsman and American materials, color and rooflines, and other design Farmhouse architectural styles. Architectural features, on all sides of all buildings in residential elements and details would include the use of front areas. and upstairs patios and the use of varying building materials (e.g. board and batten siding and shingles) that would break up the perceived mass of the building and provide visual interest. Garages would generally be recessed from the front of each home. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Policy H - Orient buildings toward major Consistent. The proposed residential homes and thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, and the proposed commercial/office building located gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and along Donlon Way would be oriented towards the identifiable entries where feasible in campus office street with sidewalks connecting with Dublin areas. Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. 10.7.3.2. Landscaping and Natural Features Policy H - Preserve Mature trees and vegetation, Consistent. As shown in Figure 2-12: Tree Removal with special consideration given to the protection of Plan,the proposed project would remove 107 trees, groups of trees and associated under growths and 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. 9f specimen trees. these Heritage tFees, five of them ,l f e;ack wa;,Uts leeated en the westem edge of DeRlen 1,61a),. 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site,the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of$19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting-I- six trees (36" box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle, Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. Kimley»)Horn Page 3-115 Heritage Park Final Braf EIR Public Services and Utilities 3.10 Public Services and Utilities This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project on public services and facilities and services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, libraries, parks/recreation facilities, stormwater drainage, potable water, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and other public utilities. Information in this section is derived primarily from the proposed project, as well as personal communication with service providers. Environmental Setting Fire Protection The proposed project would be served by the Alameda County Fire Department (hereinafter ''ACFD"), which provides fire protection and suppression services under contract to the City of Dublin. ACDF currently consists of 36 line personnel. ACDF has 28 fire stations, three of which are located in the City of Dublin. Station No. 16 is located at 7494 Donohue Drive; Station No. 17 is located at 6200 Madigan Avenue; and Station No. 18 is located at 4800 Fallon Road. • Station No. 16 houses one engine company, none patrol and a water tender, and a patrol. This station provides initial response to west and downtown Dublin. • Station No. 17 provides service to the west, and central core sections of Dublin and would provide second response to the project area. This station houses one engine and one truck company. • Station No. 18 provides the primary response for the eastem most portions of Dublin. This station includes one engine company and one bulldozer. Law Enforcement The proposed project would be served by the City of Dublin Police Department. Police services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract to the Alameda County Sheriffs Office. As of June 2013, the City of Dublin has 51 sworn personnel (Personal Communication with Lieutenant Nate Schmidt, Alameda County Sherrff; Department/City of Dublin Police Department, June 5, 2013). Police Services are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff personnel located at the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Center Plaza. Services provided include uniformed police officers patrolling the City in marked vehicles, criminal investigations, crime prevention, drug enforcement prevention education programs, and special investigation officers responsible for narcotic and vice suppression. Response times to various places in the City can vary depending on the time of day and the available units. The average response time to a life- or-death emergency averages approximately 3.5 to five minutes. For non-emergencies, the response time is typically 15 minutes. Dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at the Sheriffs Office facilities located in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward. Dublin police also enforce city ordinances and state laws within the limits of the City of Dublin. KimleyoHorn Page 3-131 Heritage Park Final Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities required to pay school impact fees as required under State law to the DUSD. This is considered a less than significant impact The proposed project would allow for a future net new development potential with a maximum of 54 residential units within the project site. Children from the proposed residential dwelling units would likely attend DUSD schools including: Dublin Elementary School; Wells Middle School; and Dublin High School. Based on the DUSD's student generation rate for small lot single-family residential dwelling units of 0.847 K-12 students per home and 54 homes, the proposed project would generate approximately 2-9 46 students. As shown in Table 3.10-1: Enrollment Capacity of Schools Serving the Project Site, there is currently an excess capacity of 977 students at the schools that would serve the proposed project. Future development within the project site would be required by law to pay school impact fees at the time of the building permit issuance. The DUSD currently charges Level 2 development fees in the amount of$ 4,79 per square foot of residential development and $0.47 per square foot for commercial and industrial uses. For the proposed project the applicant will be required to pay the DUSD approximately $646,650 in Level 2 development fees for the single-family residential units and approximately $6,580 in Level I fees for the commercial building. These fees are used by the DUSD to mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities. Additionally, individual homeowners will be required to pay fees associated with the financing of the both Measure C and Measure E bonds which are used to help pay in part for new school facilities. A project applicant's fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD. School fees exacted from residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary school service and facilities improvements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within the DUSD service area, and would allow for the DUSD to allocate these funds as deemed necessary. Therefore, the increased demand on the DUSD is considered a less than significant impact on school services, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities Impact 3.10-4: The proposed project would increase the demand for park and recreational uses within the project site. However, development projects within the project area would be required to pay the City's Public Facilities Fee prior to Building Permit issuance. This is considered a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for neighborhood and community parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by the proposed project. The City ofDubhn Genera/Plan establishes park standards that call Kimley»)Horn Page 3-143 Heritage Paris Plan Final BFaft EIR Public Services and Utilities for five net acres per 1,000 residents. Based on a population estimate of 2.73 persons per household and construction of 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons. This would result in the demand of .73 acres of parks. The proposed project includes private open space at the residential units (e.g. private porches). The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities Fee would be applied to development at the project site. The Public Facilities Fees would vary according to the size of residential units, the location of the development, and a credit for the dedication of land and funding for construction of the parks. With payment of the City's public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no mitigation is required. Increased Demand for Library Services or Other Public Facilities Impact 3.10-5: The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for library services. The proposed project would provide adequate property tax revenue to the City, a portion of which is used to fund libraries and other public facilities. Existing library facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not physically impact other public facilities. This is considered a less than significant impact. The Dublin Library is a partnership between the City of Dublin and Alameda County Library. Although the proposed project would increase the demand for library services, funding for additional library facilities and other public facilities would be provided with an increase in property taxes and therefore additional demand for these services could be met concurrent with implementation of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to require the construction of new library facilities; would not cause or accelerate the physical deterioration of existing library facilities; and would not physically impact other public facilities. This would be considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Change in Wastewater Demand Impact 3.10-6 The proposed project would result in dee=easean increase in the amount of wastewater generated at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the existing service provider has an adequate capacity to meet this demand. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact DSRSD provides wastewater collection services in the project vicinity. The proposed project would connect to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located in Donlon Way. The existing sewer is approximately five feet deep at the proposed tie-in point and therefore the proposed project would require installation of a sewer pump. The on-site Page 3-144 Kimley 0 Hotn Heritage Park Final HEIR Public Services and Utilities sewer system would serve the Single Family Residential Lots 8 to 54 and Lots I to 7 and would have laterals connecting to the existing sewer main located within Donlon Way. A separate sewer lateral would be installed for the commercial office building, which would connect to the existing main in Donlon Way. As shown in Table 3.10-3: Proposed Wastewater Generation, the proposed project would result in a dry weather flow of 4-,4 X914,100 gallons per day (gpd) based on an average daily flow of 256 gpd per Single Family Residential unit and 367 gpd per acre for commercial/office use. Compared to the existing wastewater generation of 2,426 gpd, the proposed project would result in , Egan increase of the dry weather flow of X41 1,674 gpd. Table 3.10-3:Wastewater Generation Wasteuatep � k M ::' ..Lari'f Use, ;Un ands,fires a v.ast +ater Y ene on;Ra#e .µ. Sri i*pq, u gp Existing Land Use Commercial/Office 6.6 Acres 367.64 gallons per day per acre 2,426 gpd Subtotal 2,426 gpd Proposed Land Use Commercial/Office 0.75 Acres 367.64 gallons per day per acre 276 gpd Single Family Residential 54 SFR units 256 gallons per day per SFR 113,824 gpd SFR Subtotal +4814,410 d Total -17411,674 d *Rates fi-om DRSD picepesed Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD DSRSD in collaboration with MWH Inc. completed a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update in June of 2005 Land use data form the basis for estimating wastewater flows in the collection system Based on the Wastewater Master Plan (2005), the existing sewer infrastructure system that provides service to the project area is sized to accommodate existing and planned development based on the City's General Plan and the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan rg owth projections. Public facility improvements for sanitary sewer drainage are managed and maintained by the DSRSD. In the District's Capital Improvement Plan, the costs of capital improvement Projects are assigned to Local Sewer Replacement (Fund 210) and/or Local Sewer Expansion (Fund 220). The Replacement F€und represents costs that are allocated to existing users (generally through sewer rates), and the Expansion fund represents the costs allocated to future users (generally through connection fees). Implementation of these Kimley>})Horn Page 3-145 Heritage Park Plan Final HEIR Public Services and Utilities actions would ensure that adequate wastewater infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would be required to comply with wastewater treatment requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The wastewater treatment plant has an excess capacity of 5.52 million gallons per day (DSRSD 2005) and could adequately serve the proposed project–and-4heFereFe—He `4 Additionally, tThe proposed project would be required to pay the sanitary sewer connection fee to the DSRSD 4-E�for the District to serve the proposed project. Although implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for wastewater treatment and disposal this demand is not anticipated to result in dry weather wastewater flows that exceed existing or planned capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. This is considered a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Change in Water Demand and Extension of Water Infrastructure Impact 3.10-7: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a deEFease an increase in the water demand at the project site. This would be considered a less than significant impact. As shown in Table 2 1: Existing and Proposed Water Demand the proposed project would result in an increase of 721.9 gallons per day. The project site has multiple water laterals, which serve the existing office buildings located off of Donlon Way. The proposed project would include an additional connection point to the existing eight-inch main within Dublin Boulevard to create a looped system. As shown in Figure 2-10: Preliminary Utility Plan, the on-site water system will serve Single Family Residential Lots 8-54, while Lots 1-7 will be served with individual laterals from the public water main located in Donlon Way. DSRSD is the purveyor of potable water in the City of Dublin. DSRSD purchases wholesale water from Zone 7 who in turns purchases 70 percent of its water from the State Water Project The remainder of the Zone 7 water is from groundwater aquifers through the Livermore-Amador Valley. Page 3-146 Kimley o Horn Heritage Park Final Draft EIR Public Services and Utilities DSRSD in collaboration with West Yost & Associates completed a Water Supply Master Plan Update in 2005 The Water Master Plan Update based future demand (in part) on the City of Dublin's General Plan and respective Specific Plan growth projections. The update recommends additional storage for the central Dublin area and potable water system facility improvements to support existing and future conditions. No additional pumping capacity is required for Pressure Zone I which includes the project area. Potable Water Supply Availability and Reliability - Zone 7 is DSRSD's sole potable water supplier and Zone 7 is aggressively planning for water supply programs and projects to meet the water demands of its customers through buildout of the adopted general plans. With Zone 7's planned programs and projects implemented DSRSD anticipates no water supply shortage However, if Zone 7's planned programs and projects are not implemented DSRSD anticipates: • Approximately three percent water shortage starting 2030 during Normal years; • Approximately one percent water supply shortage starting 2030 during a Single Dry Year, • For a multiple year event that starts in 2025 DSRSD will receive 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the first year, 100 percent of its total water demand in the second year, and 72 percent of its total potable water demand (28 percent water shortage) in the third year, • For a multiple year event that starts in 2030 DSRSD will receive 98 percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year, • For a multiple d yyear event that starts in 2035 DSRSD will receive 98 percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable water demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year. The Zone 7 Board of Directors adopted a revised water supply policy on October 17, 2012 which includes the following level of service goals: • Meet 85 percent of Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demands 99 percent of the time; • Meet 100 percent of M&I water demands 90 percent of the time; • Meet at least 80 percent of the maximum month demand during an extended unplanned outage. The revised reliability policy does not change the amount of water supply available to the retailers under Normal Single Dry or Multiple Dry years. Rather, it provides Zone 7 with the additional flexibility and time necessary to evaluate develop and implement cost- effective solutions necessary to allow Zone 7 to continue to provide a reliable high-quality water supply to its customers in the face of an uncertain water supply future. Changing the third goal to reflect a prolonged outage on the maximum month instead of the maximum day should allow Zone 7 to develop more cost-effective solutions to major, prolonged KimleyoHorn Page 3-147 Heritage Park Plan Final HEIR Public Services and Utilities shortages while also providing the time necessary to communicate with and obtain a response from its customers (the water retailers). DSRSD proposed to manage and further reduce its potable water demands through additional conservation efforts and its recycled water program. However, if supply shortages do occur, DSRSD may have to invoke its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan as described in the 2010 UWMP. Pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4) and based on the DSRSD 2010 UWMP, potable water demands for the proposed project can be met by the DSRSD during Normal Single Dry and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year protection with no water supply shortage if Zone Ts planned programs and projects are implemented. If Zone Ts planned programs and projects are not implemented the proposed project would be subject to the same water conservation measures and water use restrictions as DSRSD s other existing and future potable water customers as included in DSRSD's Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan. Recycled WaterAuai/ability and Reliability- Although more than what was included in the DSRSD 2010 UWMP the projected recycled water demands for the proposed protect can be met as wastewater collected in the DSRSD's service area exceeds projected recycled water demands DSRSD anticipates resolving the current recycled water production limitations and actual unit recycled water use would be less than projected unit recycled water use (36 inches per year versus 48 inches per year) Furthermore DSRSD does not anticipate significant issues in its ability to provide recycled water to its customers. DSRSD s recycled water supply is reliable under Normal Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years. Therefore pursuant to Water Code Section 10910(c)(4) and based on the DSRSD 2010 UWMP potable and recycled water demands for the proposed project can be met during Normal Single Dry and Multiple Dry years for a 20-year protection. Therefore, there is adequate capacity to serve build-out of the proposed project. Based on a review of these projections there is adequate capacity to service the proposed project In addition new development would tie into the existing service lines. Other than minor construction to improve and/or expand existing connections no major upgrades to water infrastructure will be required Additionally, the application would be responsible for the cost and construction of new infrastructure required to serve new development. Implementation of these actions would ensure that adequate water infrastructure would be available to serve the proposed project This would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Change in Stormwater Runoff Impact 3.10-8: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease in stormwater flows through the project site. The proposed project would be required to install proposed drainage improvements and pay applicable impact fees at the time of issuance of the building permits. Therefore,this is considered a less than significant impact. Page 3-148 Kimley o Horn Heritage Park Final Draft EIR CEQA Considerations Title 24, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings, was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California's energy consumption, and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. In 2010, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements. The 2010 Standards are expected to substantially reduce the growth in electricity and natural gas use. Additional savings result from the application of the Standards on building alterations. For example, requirements for cool roofs, lighting, and air distribution ducts are expected to save about additional of electricity. These savings are cumulative, doubling as years go by. Implementation of the project design features would result in reduced project-related GHG emissions. For example, the proposed project would comply with the Tier I requirements of Title 24, Part I I (California Green Building Standards Code) of the California Code of Regulations. Tier I requires projects to exceed Title 24 by 15 percent. Additionally, the proposed project would install high efficiency lighting. The project would adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency. As such, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. 4.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The term "environment," as used in this definition, means the physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposed project. The "environment" includes both natural and man-made conditions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). Detailed analyses and discussion of environmental topics found to be significant are provided within Section 3.0 of this EIR. Section 3.0 also identifies impacts that are found to be less than significant. The project site is an urban infill area and the following environmental resources do not exist on the project site and/or are not considered to have the potential to cause a significant environmental impact. As such, detailed analyses of the following environmental resources were not included in the FIR: Agricultural and Forest Resources — The project site is developed and is not being utilized for agricultural uses. The project site is designated ''Other Land" on the Alameda County Important Farmland Map that is published by the California Department of Conservation (DOC). In addition, the project site does not contain any forest resources as defined by the CEQA Guidelines. Biological Resources - The proposed project would remove 107 trees, 16 of which are classified as Heritage trees. Page 4-6 Kimley>»Horn Heritage Park Final Drat EIR CEQA Consideration blaEk WaIA45-ieE4ed en the 30 trees would be preserved including three Heritage trees; namely two coast redwoods (29-inch and 25-inches in diameter) and one coast live oak (28 inches in diameter) located on the perimeter of the project site. To help off-set the impacts to these Heritage Trees and other trees removed on site, the project applicant has agreed to fund the City in the amount of $19,000 to assist in the planting trees in the proposed Orchard in the Heritage Park. This payment would be provided to the City prior to issuance of the site grading permit. As shown in Figure 2-13: Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include extensive on-site landscaping. This includes planting - six trees (36'' box) along Donlon Way. Numerous other trees and shrubs would be planted on site including redwoods, crape myrtle,Japanese maple, and Southern magnolia. • Mineral Resources — According to the California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, the project site is not identified as an area with significant mineral deposits (DOC 2013). • Population and Housing - The proposed project provides for the future development of a maximum of 54 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.73 persons per household and 54 residential units, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 147 persons upon buildout of the proposed project. With a current population of approximately 46,934 residents in the City, the proposed project would represent approximately .31 percent of this growth. Although the proposed project would increase the population in the City and includes a General Plan Amendment, the proposed designations would be consistent with the nature of surrounding development; would be within the estimate of population growth per the City of Dublin Housing Element. See also, Section 4.3 above regarding growth inducement. There is no existing housing within the project site and therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing. Transportation and Circulation - As shown in Table 4-1: Trip Generation of the Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conditions, the proposed project would result in a decrease in average daily trips during the AM and PM peak hours as compared to the trip generation for the existing development. Kimley»)Horn Page 4-7 Legend Parks/Public Recreation Medium-High Density Residential ' Medium Density Residential " Retail/Office A ' Business Park/Industrial Downtown Dublin -Transit-Oriented District _ Downtown Dublin - Retail District Project Site Boundary 1 w P Source:City of Dublin,RBF Consulting(2014) Heritage Park EIR . . 0 Proposed General Plan and Specifc Plan Land Use Map CONSULTING A- - Company Figure 3.8-3 t Heritage Park Final EIR 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.1 Introduction When approving projects with Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency adopting measures to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts of a proposed project is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project, may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the FIR required to address only the significant impacts associated with the project being approved. The required mitigation measures are summarized in this program; the full text of the impact analysis and mitigation measures is presented in the Draft FIR. 4.2 Format The MMRP is organized in a table format (see Table 4-I: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program), keyed to each significant impact and each FIR mitigation measure. Only mitigation measures adopted to address significant impacts are included in this program. Each mitigation measure is set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of monitoring requirements. The column headings in the tables are defined as follows: Mitigation Measures adopted as Conditions of Approval: This column presents the mitigation measure identified in the FIR. Implementation Procedures: This column identifies the procedures associated with implementation of the migration measure. Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks. Monitoring and Reporting Action: This column refers the outcome from implementing the mitigation measure. Mitigation Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each mitigation task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action. Verification of Compliance: This column will be used by the lead agency to document the person who verified the implementation of the mitigation measure and the date on which this verification occurred. Kimley»)Horn Page 4-1 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Heritage Park project PLPA-2013-00002 ("Project") and means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the term "EIR" means the Draft and Final EIR documents collectively, unless otherwise specified. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions is in the EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the EIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures,except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. Impact 3.2-1: Short-term Construction Emissions. The proposed project may result in future short-term air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including grading, operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures on the project site. This is a potentially significant impact. MM 3.2-1a: Implement Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Demolition Permit, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and contract specifications stipulate that the proposed project adhere to the most recent BAAQMD CEQA guidelines regarding short-term construction best management practices. These may include the following: • Water all active construction areas to maintain 12 percent soil moisture. • All grading shall be suspended when winds exceed 20 miles per hour. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. Pave,apply water two times daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 1 • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Site access points from public roadways shall be paved or treated to prevent track-out. • Replace vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM 3.2-1 b: Implement NOX Reduction Measures. The following measures shall be implemented during construction to reduce NOx related emissions. They shall be included in the Grading Plan, Building Plans,and contract specifications and shall include the following: • All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx. • All contractors shall use equipment that meets the California Air Resources Board's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. • The idling time of diesel powered construction equipment shall be minimized to two minutes. • The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment(more than 50 horsepower)to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources Board fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. • Utilize existing power sources(i.e.,electrical power)when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 2 Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks by nearly half as shown in DEIR Table 3,2-5;the reduced emissions would comply with BAAQMD thresholds for NOx emissions. Including the NOx reduction measures in grading and other construction plans ensures that the measures will be implemented in the construction process. Implementation of the measures will reduce nuisance fugitive dust emissions as recommended by BAAQMD. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact3.2-2: Long-Term Operational Emissions—Regional Emissions. Implementation of the proposed project could result in regional air emissions from operational sources in exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. This is a potentially significant impact, MM 3.2-2: Implement only natural gas hearths in residential units. The proposed project shall include natural gas hearths only in the proposed on-site residential units. These shall be incorporated into the project design to reduce operational ROG air emissions to ensure consistency with BAAQMD emission thresholds. The project applicant shall demonstrate the incorporation of natural gas hearths priorto approval of final design documents. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Restricting hearths in the residences to natural gas only would substantially reduce area emissions from the Project, resulting in emissions well below the ROG thresholds. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.2-4: Long-Term Operational Emissions—Toxics Air Contaminants. The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial long-term operational pollutant concentrations, particularly from vehicles and trucks on adjacent roadways. These impacts are potentially significant. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 1b. See above description. MM 3.2-4: Provide Upgraded Ventilation Systems. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the Community Development Director shall confirm that all building plans and contract specifications require residential dwelling units within 600 feet of the north edge of the 1-580 general purpose lanes to be equipped with sealed heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC)systems. The sealed air system shall be designed so that all ambient air introduced into the interior living space would be filtered to remove diesel particulate matter(DPM)and other particulate matter at minimum of up to 75 percent of particulates of 0.3 micron or larger in size from the ambient air that is introduced to the system, and 90 percent of particulates of 1 micron or larger. This mitigation measure also requires a commitment by the applicant to ensure regular maintenance and replacement of filters as needed. This requirement will be included as part of the conditions of approval and could be done as part of the responsibility of the Home Owner's Association. Project design specifications shall stipulate that the heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system intakes shall be placed as far away from 1-580 as feasible. The design shall also require positive pressure with the HVAC system in all occupied spaces to prevent the incursion of outside air that bypasses the HVAC filters. 3 Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the mitigations will reduce exposure to diesel exhaust for the residences within 600 feet of 1-580 to less than applicable exposure thresholds . The mitigations employ a combination of techniques to reduce such exposure. The mitigations require use of sealed ventilation systems to filter and remove diesel and other particulates so the amount entering the homes would be reduced by 75% or more. By requiring positive pressure in the ventilation system, the mitigation further limits the amount of diesel exhaust exposure to residents because outside air would not bypass the filters. By requiring the HOA to maintain and replace the filters, the mitigation ensures that the filtration system will function as intended. In addition to filtering,the measure ensures that ventilation system intakes are located as far from the freeway as feasible since the exposure decreases with distance from the freeway,thereby further decreasing exposure to residents. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.2.6: Long-Term Operational Emissions—Clean Air Plan Consistency. Construction-related and operational criteria pollutant emissions may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2. See above description. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: By restricting the use of residence hearths to natural gas only, the mitigation ensures that implementation of the Project would reduce ROG emissions to below applicable standards,thus ensuring compliance with state ozone standards and the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant, Impact 3.3-2: Archaeological Resources. The proposed project has been previously disturbed with development of the Heritage Park commercial/office complex. However, based on the existence of the archaeological resources within and adjacent to the Dublin Village Area Specific Plan,there is a high probability of identifying Native American archaeological resources and encountering historic-period archaeological resources within the Specific Plan area and at the project site, Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact. MM 3.3-2a: Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present at the project site during ground disturbing activities (e.g. grading and excavation) during construction of the proposed project. If anything is discovered during the archaeological monitoring, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b. MM 3.3-2b: Halt Work/Archaeological Evaluation/Site Specific Mitigation. If any potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground 4 disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource(s)in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(f). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City staff of the encountered archeological deposit. If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological resource,then no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an archaeological resource then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided,adverse impacts to the deposit shall be addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b). Measures may include, but are not limited to archaeological data recovery,etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the archaeologist, a professional-quality report shall be submitted to the City, the project applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. The project applicant shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c)through (f)of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code 21083.2. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigations ensure that currently unknown archeological resources will not be inadvertently disturbed or destroyed as a result of construction activities. Through the requirement for an archeological monitor, the mitigations also ensure that a knowledgeable professional will be present during construction activities to recognize and identify potential artifacts or other resources. Therefore,after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.3-3: Paleontological Resources. No paleontological resources are known to exist within the project vicinity. However, the presence of unknown paleontological resources could be discovered during site preparation and grading activities, which would be a potentially significant impact. MM 3.3-3: Halt Work/Paleontological Evaluation/Site Specific Mitigation. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant,they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: l)the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area; 2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area; 3) background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed,a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. 5 Rationale for Finding: The mitigations ensure that currently unknown paleontological resources will not be inadvertently disturbed or destroyed as a result of construction activities. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.3-4: Disturb Human Remains Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries. Due to the disturbed nature of the project site, there are no known human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries that are anticipated to be disturbed during short-term construction activities, However, human remains could be discovered during site preparation and grading activities, which would be a potentially significant impact. MM 3.3-4: Halt Work/Coroner's Evaluation/Native American Heritage Consultant/Compllance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation activities,all ground-disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroner's Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a"Most Likely Descendent. (MLD)."The MILD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains,which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts, After completion of the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for burial. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigations ensure that currently unknown human remains will not be inadvertently disturbed or destroyed through ground disturbance as a result of construction activities. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.4-3: Exposure of People or Structures to Seismic Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is likely to occur at the project site and in the project vicinity in the event of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people and/or structures to potentially significant adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury or death. This is considered a potentially significant impact. MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that incorporates the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation by Stevens Ferrone and Bailey Engineering Company, Inc, (March 2012). These include maintaining a minimum 25 foot setback from the center line of the Calaveras fault trace,construction of post-tensioned slab foundations,and over-excavation of disturbed weak soils and fill. The design level geotechnical report shall address site preparation and grading (including measures to address potential liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the project design and construction documents. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant 6 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Project is subject to the California Building Code ("CBC") which recognizes the seismic risk of developing in this state and includes stringent design and construction requirements and engineering applicable not only to future Project structures but also to grading,foundations,retaining walls and other structures. The Project also prepared site- and project-specific geotechnical studies with recommendations which the City peer-reviewed as part of the EIR process, Building from the background of the CBC regulatory scheme and the existing preliminary geotechnical studies,the identified mitigation sets forth the next steps for the Project, consistent with City requirements for design-level geotechnical studies to show how the CBC requirements and the preliminary study recommendations will be implemented through specific structural and improvement design. Though the mitigation,the Project will continue the process of increasingly refined engineering review to ensure that ground shaking is addressed at each step of the development process. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.4-4: Exposure of People or Structures to Liquefaction. The proposed project could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction. This is a potentially significant impact. MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. See above description. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The required design-level geotechnical report will build on the existing geotechnical studies to show how liquefaction regulations in the CBC, and the City's standard engineering practices and design criteria for soil stability will be implemented in project construction and improvement. The mitigation will ensure that proper soil engineering, foundation design and construction will be implemented to avoid hazards from seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction. Therefore,after applying the mitigation measure,the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.4-6: Exposure to Expansive Soil. Implementation of the proposed project would include future development within an area that has expansive soils. With adherence to the City's Building Code and CBC requirements, this is a potentially significant impact. MM 3.4-3: Preparation of Design-Level Geotechnical Report. See above description. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The required design-level geotechnical report will build on the existing geotechnical studies to show how regulations in the CBC, and the City's standard engineering practices and design criteria 7 for soil stability will be implemented in project construction and improvement. The mitigation will ensure that proper soil engineering, foundation design and construction will be implemented to avoid hazards from expansive soils. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.6-4: Accidental Conditions During Construction. Construction activities at the project site may result in accidental conditions as a result of potentially contaminated groundwater underlying the project site. This is a potentially significant impact. MM 3.6-4: Review Files for the former Dublin Square Shopping Center and Prepare a Worker Safety Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an environmental consultant with Phase II/site characterization experience shall review the existing files maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health for the Heritage Park site and prepare a worker safety plan to ensure construction worker safety during grading/excavation activities. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation recognizes the potential for contaminated groundwater from previous underground storage tank releases and ensures that an effective construction worker safety program will be crafted based on existing information from regulatory agencies,so as to limit exposure of workers to hazardous materials. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. Impact 3.6-5: Accidental Conditions During Operation. During operation of the proposed project,there is the potential for the residential uses to be exposed to hazardous vapors as a result of contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the project site. potentially significant impact. MM 3.6-5: Conduct a Vapor Intrusion Investigation. Prior to issuance of building permits, vapor intrusion investigations shall be conducted by a qualified Environmental Professional, in consultation with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) or other appropriate agency if applicable. Should the environmental professional determine that proposed buildings could be impacted by vapor intrusion, the Environmental Professional shall recommend specific design measures to be incorporated into the building design that would reduce these indoor air quality concentrations to below applicable regulatory thresholds. Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation follows up on the existing Phase I ESA to determine if vapor intrusion will occur from prior onsite and offsite uses. The mitigation requires that the nature and extent of the vapor encroachment will be identified, if any, and that appropriate design measures will be implemented to ensure that applicable indoor air quality standards are met, in compliance with county and state regulatory requirements. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. 8 Impact 3.9-1: Exposure to Short-term Construction Related Noise and Vibration. The proposed project may result in short-term construction-related noise at nearby noise sensitive land uses. This is a potentially significant impact. MM 3.9.1: Implement Short-Term Construction Best Management Noise Practices. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects: All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust. The contractor shall maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. Stationary equipment shall be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. ' Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations[CCR]).Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the sensitive receptors. A qualified"Noise Disturbance Coordinator"shall be designated amongst the construction crew whom shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received,the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint(e.g.,starting too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.)and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department. Select demolition methods to minimize vibration,where possible(e.g.,sawing masonry into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers). ® Construction trucks shall utilize a route that is least disruptive to sensitive receptors, preferably major roadways(San Ramon Road, and Interstate 580). Construction trucks should,to the extent practical,avoid the weekday and Saturday a,m, and p.m. peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a,m. and 4:00 p.m, to 6:00 p.m.). Net Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: The mitigation measure ensures that construction traffic will be limited to less noise sensitive periods of the day, that construction equipment is operated and maintained to reduce noise levels, and that staging and storage areas are located as far from sensitive receptors as feasible. Through this variety of measures, the mitigation ensures that construction noise impacts will be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than significant. 2277291.1 9 i Ii v ` al k ki t 1- M CD c td 0 u= a c lb Q z c o 0 0 aco P i a § v -o E •tn C t t < to L N .td LO tsn E a) N .,. 7 C ° N N V V Q p c c c U y a) 2 bin 0 t U e 2 0 ;: U L 'v a) bA ,N aJ .- «f .O O U Q - c td y O ' C t .+, rd o Q .O ate,, l' IA Lc QC. ° � +% a� DS < 7wm � .S Ece F- . E ao u I- wm > _0 DO- I t E v a, u t C S U Q tib w ia) C ao 3 do O 'D `O i ECG U om # -C d v o c m 5 o � � t E 3 ba art C ,ti aO o 2 5 EUz .. v t6 o 1Z au (L) t 7 v V T d 1- to 8 .E ....q cu o c O n. '' 3 v .p ao o a -o v N 0, C to v) •L — C C '^ a) o a _O p v E .-U w < E 0 E _v > o 2 2 v 5 Us V3d N -0 vt O N C > X .g N O I C 41 + � �vp — a) C ■ L. �1 ° 3O E �w, C C X OC OCD , C_ C 3 .O QGG¢}. 1 € E_aQE v O b .N % !. 8 � 2 ■ M- O C O , Q t E C O co d. -� td d. «t p p v o CO ° O c L p ` v O j i E 4- u .O aco m s N T v O �o �- O u L a) N v tz G N U v O v D p u X � -OO t(it O N b in q V4' a ° ° °vc b a i o ° o a o v V E �i ' CD �i c > p O • QaO u � o_ � � > 2 oar � +, � B. aO �i a) t L N a) v, L.v � o € v o > ° c as a, v 3 id ii t o u -o o 3 D o ac ca..._ _9- o .c c vQ N m V E c „, .� — ,� td O to ,r T '� ._ p (d al td Rf L Q1 y 7 T Q w U n3—0 cd -n om > O 0 o � E a) `� _fit aE v � v o o a� �'• vi �+ O S Y L (n Q) — •C G O L a) 4 `�• � � � � ~ Qt Q o 2 ° o w Q � o to ,mv -0 to ry u 111)) M.' o g o Cl V � ' L C CL ■ • • • • • • O 'DO E i( Ea. a_ wci aaa 0 g / * u a « / / 0 / Cl- _ w U c� kd �4 $ � t to a -c \ t . 2 � ƒ 0 /� fa- ƒ . / 0 \ / Eu § £ r k » ® z 2 ® / $ \ \ ƒ \ y / / 2 ® y p > O ye / \ . 3 ® \ \ // y 7 ¥ ƒ / E ® 4 y m u m = E _ —Cd / 2 / / -J$ ( \ © / / \ \ / / 7 / — / E $ o 'b / / = 0 � \/ x 7 7 ® ± f \ G ƒ z .- ƒ ® \ © S c % $ \ / -C E / / u / / \ \ \ 7 y = / « 0 0 m w / e ƒ e c o [ = m 2 @ « ƒ 6 « J % y § « ® / ± / ' / / \ % \ ƒ / \ e ± y .%2 $ x / q / [ / ~ / / / 0= ) ° \ [ ±_ -/ w G < 0 2 ° / ° G o y a x t \ » J 7 & ƒ 2 ) ƒ fi g \ / y u u \ 2 \ / m s $ « d / G t e z ƒ o y ® o o > e ) / 2 = e .E o c» ° 2 L- \ / \ 7 7 ƒ = j / 2 — E E / m o o t@ E_ ° g \ \ J \ .7/ / / / \ \ \ 2 % 0 / c a c a o 0 / O O u o' v v � v ro ro Alf v = C (V 0 0 O C O c C: co o cn a c -° O mQ X L- + c 0 ao (10 O v c O o -P c c ao - Oz u 0 aq ao � c O �� u ° a EC2 > � Z .� 6 °u ° UQ -v uo E ro L ado ao c CO c O t °c° c n- w U u O 4- v 4E O moo_' U4O a v C C: 0 a�O 0 O L- ro aq -C Z + X n c C cn c N c o u L + 00 -- v .0 O c O c o (u o a u Z v E u aO o E v 0- ro v v u u v_ v D ° N 0 a c a� v c D ci c v t E 2 ao a0 0 -C '4- °o ° v E ° 4- .c o v o o o v ° o v �v avO c H + o C) ro co v o avo a > ° o tiL c +, -C -0 u � E v a v O a1 c c - +, n v + ° N o + O + v 3 v O v s o v * O 0 c ) v 73 N a Nj �p c C:d `J OO +� - + O -C O O a v N N v N c N c Ln O � m -0 QI .N 0 u E '-p v v + a u o v v aO v -o +, U Es a c > 0 6b 0 ( o °- u � -o E 0 � U, o v Q Z v 0 a � 0 v u v v c o v -0 v a O n v > d O aui a� a ao X — o v N _ o o > o Q) c .,_, c Co L N -p v u L -O L +J ccs td `^ Q) O Z Ln 0 0 t 0 �.� u c o c v O m 3 Q) °� 3 o a D a N v °--o .o U o UEO a ao o ` (n u E c O + v v cn v p 12 E N N d u 7 > N u d 0 3 v v ,c L- cn Cj S cd .O- c 0 c E V -O V -p bA 0 X a N c 7 O c N -p .c O N D v aJ +, O '� N v N c ° 3 0 v o °' o o v o cd o v 0 ° °+' v N > o Y p N o Z - ao Q v Q Q F- L u > Z Q o V ro a C- + m Lo v CO 3 . . . . ■ .E o M o E a F�- o 0 ou a) c _ O O t0' D c o LO � (n 0 .N ...0 a a .L2 -0 0_ ++ LL 0 O t O d a Q ro v O N M ++- '+' cOd c0 +� C C o o � o aao c "� O 'o aco - U Ou c ' ° .O E v v o N "c U o v + a "u c c n (1) E c c CIO c;n U E E o r E o ° o ° ca c a > au E > o EoOC U0� Unr) a ao O o L v L o L Q O a, c L^ u rd L rd a u L ro O d c ew c a) ct d c � O C N o L N cd c v O L 0 + a) 0 "c + 0 d ° c O ° co a ro a L o L o E u L +- u O O v u U °_ u + ° L L � +� '� +� u a) +. v aJ - 0 c L -0 I O O O .o c o d a Ou p Ov o Ln o O cn N w Ov +� Q ao O c L ° > ._ o c D -C O aco Q +, 0 L c c o L -0 u c "+ 3 � c > v cd d D 0 c 0 Ld v > a) O w O v (d cn L N 0 rd 0 C E o - D 0 cco m L L o b rd� a 3 Q) c v ° c v- Q c� - O ro o 4� c-P 0 a_ ro � +v> a o � ° _ �d w a o E a) > ro °L o o ^ L a)+-o _0 E � m � +O-0 t O c°0 (n ° o � p ao °c °t c o u a O c n d 1- N L O N L a) C>"0 O L QJ +' - i-' v fd > -'�.', �' co -}P -0 u O ''fir o L N M O -N -- 0 c �n - L L o a) D- o a c c o Q c ° -Ln f-d O > v c 2 c u ° _ c LA O v + v O cd ro c 0 u ao n = i E ° � � c a a� c D o -c E o n - v "� n ° n v L o v O d c } } " E E _ 0 c �- `� a c ° a N s � O .Ln - v o � 0_ cd c L 3 c N U _a E t 0 "E E o � s a o c o n° o rd > E u ao w E u � F- � � ° + aovv oo = Y c cV .� �.� °� Ln E ° cd E E ° .±° E E "o ° u a o N O O 'd O N O N v a O c O O ro .L -C cad cn } + ri i U o E E a� E L .� D u + ao o U v c ° v c O 5 °+' ° °n "�_ 0 Q ° o n E _ c O E v o � v N a, c a, o n L 3 E CL c ( +, O O I- a.o � -0 E -o 0_ 0 L u Q 0- 'd L- O O c �� cad •� � u d E L W > U Q a) � ro ao cda iL � C C v d0 a) O C N O U D C L .+ a) > t% tDo O Ou cud C u c0 C C a) a) C cz -0 O uo p v M -C U O > •�dQ DC.O v rd O N - co rd , La E C O U u O 0 .>-C + � O c t - o O . z E ° a C a u cw v o o M � o - i s U d Z U c+n f2,-' E U oho c° O 0 i' 0 b C o �o .t0' O d C C O (A L o O DC Q Z a a) v ° c cd iao O ro C: C:° o c ° d eo-o a E v ° rd O o -0 .� ° L o t a L o ° ° o a Q- 0 E 2 d a d ao d � u V) a o`do 0 + n + O ro tD.0 u v o C C ao ^ -C O .O c c a0 — p -P s- � a) O O Q d +-C v � p U o O d -0 -fl d , a +d — a) Ca T d rd vi ±� C C u vi + + Cd - Ord +� 4E ±� t a) L +, U -O -0 a) N -O Cd o a p -C m 0 ro u o �n � � o v Ln u .L P u O +� C `` cd >� O 7 cd cn C u N .V LA d ao o o � o� _au) 4 c � l� v U aCO a c � w L ° a') a, _-u It CY (0 -0 o 3 0 c U aco O N E M ° *� O U a > .E U � c O Q L C ro u t O O d a) C v v O cd a) O — O rd U I o o o o a o ° �� °o d o ° o 0 0 c rd - p O a ao� U -u o — > cn o c u v Q o u o � C M —0 CD -0 Q u o °� a� � Al W t (n c � ° u U ao D u ° U t o Q Q a O 0 L o O w 0O ^ 3 ^ p ro O } a > (d C T o t m d C a� o Q u o v = co rd.° ° - 3 t D aci o c c °c C O E aJ N O Olo O C N V � QUI + ou rd N +� 01 p -D _ i O O a O rCtl N C u C N t N D -C C > OU > CO td M Q > M_ O O 0 -C L- 0 -igj o u o' EL qj L yv o0 O v b� a_ c v ao p o _ O L :L � o o V) u ao O u co c u C: o c O tDIO 0 0-0 N O O Cd cd t c a� tDIO O Q rd D D CIO M 0 V) v o n -C c c o N o° U E o cc >o° ° ° ° c o ao c O c O o cd °o co n d E c O N a U n° o C a o M O v - p E v N E E a s v -o o ° � ° E E E ' o o U E u O o C L .0 C O O �d c a t c N V p fxC Q 2- a c c O O + a—co ° co c +� D ni c tn .0 ed N v E D- U 7 -F� "D O C Ql d0 v E _O O Ld C y O O L n E bA O E L ro O _O O O O V d'V > C 7 > U o E ro a ms E ao c o o vo ao co + C O N N c V C IQ) U � V t . N a1~ Rl U N p r p O O u t O� O O= L p a p N c u c u cd cn c D b O o N o O + — v o a ° o D o > v v d ° a o Q to c ° c -Ij O U W � N p ud c + L V- it3 E tm O > N }, N o �-. N M N `� E E N > .N O N L t L cn E D W c �n O L v ^ N n C ni -O N p +1 > +- QJ C 'io d 4J U C D u d U _-- u C p O v � ct -0 -P 0 � ° ° 3 C D u � a N O o E ccd p E O N � a u a 3 0 E c L p _w'd v 3 m E °J c ,0 d L �o N O c Q N O � d Ov N o - L c u, O E a L ° L t o p v ° E E Q o v o c N 0 o °+' o ° cn 3 ° Ua Qo0D � � � ; r - cu L N — cd cd u .C t 9 N Cd nj c v � Q) 0- 0-'t o E _ a-_ v, D a = o o o c N F— cO p � O ao-� O N -� Y M U°J N g Q) c -E -° .0 cLd b.0 , E d o L v -0 N O N n +� N C O ^ p E o v E o v o 'd o v °' .� ° � a E a ° 2 U 0 a ro cl ca Eu a� v c � L O O _ (U Ln ° U ul ° Q) ao v � W � :Q) L c O E O C :3 ccdd c O u L D (1) V) ao O u co D- u ° C t T () t > O C �T 0-0 t C +O E u R3 Q) °° o ± o L +O C "J O C O N — O W — N C pp -,—o O c � C � t 'o E .� Q U t -> Cd N a) + b N "D c c u o m (o " cd O -O aJ 0 + Z u ° d }T, `^ i .u ° ro c ° 2 cLd ° --C 00-9 a) () c +- QI -C , > Q C a) L E d u O a D u C Q C O cd .C V E OO 'C -cn ° b Q) a) -+., u z Q) E N = 0 ° rd F F� v v o O Q U E ro s Q Z U O Q U 1� .� E 'CL � o m u E w W= o m 0) c_ O o w U `—ud c a L c VI V o Eo�C QZ UO Q co rd ro c L U) Q) �+ u E 0-.0 D N O o M E v -v Q) o c � a� ao - L O +, c u Q) a v_ N c � > � v O a_u .� C o Q a o o o v u o a a° ° C: ° F 2 cd a P E ao um � u O a co O " O cd Sao p — 0 � L ° v o V ° � c > $ ao0 a LI) v c ° ° O v — o C ° ro a) 0 + Z c I— b.0 C Q) ,� cd T � C 'f C � O a) dC9 d 'L Oa 0 O N O +� ON > + C 3 ° v n a ao p aCi d Q U o o a o 4- v a a c �_ x u C u _cd O u N ° C Z (v c C O Z ro L N 0_+d d ° 0 v c o O o U v Q ° O 0 u c_o C� > � J � -o TO > � .� + a.no � a � J 3 aq � E U w w c v U v " � .� a) v E o ° c E ao E ro E ° d cm aEi > D o ao i p O 3 i E Q O ro C -� v N ao 0 u c -p U a) C Q) ro > Z +, O > C C > O C ° N ao Ln rd -- (d c + w o 3 a C -I-- m u O v ° L D v o = (a — a cd v O 4 L O O u cn L d d a) c E > a ° t .c - .`u ° c C .° d M 'O L 0 M ? E a 3 3 u E a � o r�i ac 0 E EUoC c �� -oO a +, 'd u L- -D u z o u 4- 0 o u � a v CD of a w > U Q v a) brd E a- .1 a) aco 0 v o c o v u aq c c L- 0 U cn o V C c C L t -� p �-' C c � O t d aJ -u O C E O D �Q O o U v � v o s c ° _O o +, 3 c L m c ao O ao > c v e- a + c c o ai - . � U °a- C v c d O v Eo�C ° wm -o 0.0v v Ou -0 Ou m c E OL C u aA � � w C: C D- C c o U U a v c c v ° c L c C: cd c c + C M c c o � c E � O C m E c v —rd E o ° E v � 2 u o a m v o N m -a'o E u o - c am c v a p > c a tia? � c v u O a cd cd L d L C O L cd O o a eo u a Q a a) u a u Lap :+-, -C Q) c 3 a) C -o > o v ) U C - I v ro ° c ° °c . � c rd Ln co o� a� 0 g Q) a� c x ° U a) I- ° 3 + o O ° U m ni L > � .a) U o U) —mod C C v CL 3 v v v — v -b L E c E ao CL v m a rd v i a o Q) 6 V � ° c c `d c C v U u o v cn L o u d m V) +� c -0 O u u p X p U -C -0 o N m E a N C m "o N C � L O (d O — v v a° ^ O v L w c o E o c as ro a V a) o � o .0 U c O CO c — `� N cd � >, > _O Q C N -0E >: O N Q) v O `N > 0 o _ a v ao � 3 uaa � X aTi ao ° .^ 3 °J _ a�i c > ° o c° E U c c u 0 c L .a; v > v 'd ° Y C > .� v E -_ cd in rd O + n v u O v _> +_� V u Ll C a1 v a0 u O �O 2 o — L c� m a O 2 �''� d. u v C -O - boo b0 .v 0--0 c a O c _0 O d bA v v u 0.0 N 'd Ou 'd w OV = tCd E 0 a O O c _ a u a' - � ` > U , O ro Lt Al_ b E a L L I c O ° a ON :3 O u ° u tM O N 0 (1 c — +O Ql N .- _ -�? > -p tm QVJ CO cVd 0 ap �O C `� Q rd O id _4 +�-+ '+� d vi V �n N '-N - N O O u _N C b0 L u Vl N V L (� QJ ClS Vli- " L C > .0 "c c a4 v d O O C O U u O O c° u -° v c p LO N t a u 0 a N c° w O -C o a u ° o 0 0 �, L a u o a - I- a v o . .� U 3 .� u v F L .0 bo V F v ew � C L co -u O � E N D � (D .0 C L 'C v) uA N Cl- c 0 O : d 0 C uco c a U v ° Q O N 4- N L o C2 U 0 w a v , 0 C ono O co ro ° a 3 O a : c o `n � E v + d L w cm -11 D C .� �«- 0 ro N C -c i u O tm±� U cd T L u L rd E U V N O d u O '� '� Q L u O - O vi a u +L � U c c ° o > o ao " o a � a o � ° o .0 a. d �'- cd d N d u .c v +� O ca v cn d D- �- V "- +� m Z — u b�0 c ++ O .0 cd -�Ln cn C + O 0 � L L v ° M t E V o v o ao V) 0 ago E ° c� ew u c c c — "O c N o e cow l `d -C 3 c �t > ( N N -° N D o o x c ° a c O "o ° ° ° aSQ) m u a Q) c ° o .0 o aN 0° ') - — c o cd o > . O ao o ° , u � -D E N c CL a C o w o W - � D N C O c c a -C p w d 0 C U O n c Q) c v + °J } c d L o E v a u m O rd D O C N n - N N C -a N N v > a Lo � o ° o c 3 '° o +>- a Q m o m w C a E L U -- _ N -- u L QJ >, i--' v a O a a + + a cn as° c V) O c0 -O E O M > ° ao c E W u °u c c =c QE -o Q a v u O L cd p u s M sa LO O 4J ■ 3 .o u _ U > a U = c O � 'O v 0 L - 3 Q Q -- Ou Z Z m O a 4- 0 c W o u u a N ra uJ > U � C � W qp I C � c O t E cn + v — u L Rj 0 L O — N C 0 N .L d c o N E Q .� d O ado QJ ao Q °� +° ao o ? 0 c ao + c c + v o f c aco o a b p .° -Vp 4 ° L V + W c CO d d-L E 'LA 0 N N _ O QJ rid V > +-, -0 cc E o aco L r- r^ c a O � c a o 0 a c v Id � c a w 0 o is a� o E v 4-- _ 0 0 a Lj � o E 2 a- n .i� ao 0 c u Q) > c a c v � 0 o a, E 0- 0 0 -o a 0 c t t a) D E * c o d + + O i O Fro c ro 0 d 0 � Mcn T + > — o (d +� (1) > ° 0 0 �, (d +� L + o U Q) � � C cn a °' ^ d � ° v v v > 0 c w o .0 ° ° o cd a 0 S u Ld Id W � o � O ° E-d o c c +c p -° � O rd +� M 0 U C ° c ° m N V C N L N (Vd ° N N ro ) o 0 EN o ro �°U cad -� a�0 v -� N — c N u v O + 0 + v ao > 0) 0 E n c 0 a) ao V) � �d � c a u b ai o .0---°' � o o L "o o c 0 0 L ° i o CD Q o 0 6 a Z E o � U ao11 � � v °+' - C + c a O c - c N V ° L rn c co °- � � V -ro rd "rd � QJ .rn > td d O >c (n a� v "� o v ao U .ao ° 'C - E o E 0 ) E c c m (d co t � — t O v O N 0 c 0 N 0 N ° v Q N Y c n uo Q + Q o L V D o V rd u cn a U 0