HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Attch 7 Exh B Final SEIR
The Green Mixed Use Project
Final Supplemental EIR
PLPA-2013-00013
Lead Agency:
Prepared by:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
August 2014
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 2
City of Dublin August 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................................3
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR.........................................................................4
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters..................................................................................11
Responses to DSEIR Comment Letters................................................................................12
Attachments
Attachment 1: Annotated Comment Letters
Attachment 2: Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures)
Attachment 3: Breeding Bird Survey Report, dated April 2014
Attachment 4: Alameda County Department of Environmental Health letter, dated
June 2014
Attachment 5: Ground Zero Report for Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health letter, dated April 2014
Attachment 6: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District " Guidance
for Construction GHG Emissions Reductions", dated September
2010.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 3
City of Dublin August 2014
Introduction
The project area contains approximately 27.5 acres of land located on the south side of
Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Road to the west. Interstate
580 forms the southern boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers for the project area are 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, and 986-0033-006-
00.
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated May 2014 was prepared
for this project and distributed for public review.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the DSEIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and
obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over
elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on
the DSEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on
environmental issues raised during the DSEIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a 45-day public review period
beginning on May 7, 2014 and ending on June 23, 2014.
This Comments and Responses document augments the DSEIR and, together with the
DSEIR, comprises the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for this project. This document
contains all public comments received during the public review period regarding the DSEIR
and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of
each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that
comment.
The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the
DSEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated
clarifications and modifications to the text of the DSEIR. The City has carefully reviewed the
responses in this document, especially any new information or clarifications and
modifications to the DSEIR text, against the recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines
section 15088.5. None of the new information, clarifications, or modifications in this
document constitutes significant new information as defined in the Guidelines, such as new
or substantially more severe significant impacts, therefore the City has determined that no
recirculation is required.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 4
City of Dublin August 2014
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated by reference
into the DSEIR document.
1. Page 4: Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures) has been re-printed in its
entirety to ensure that the text in the summary table matches exactly the text in the
body of the DSEIR. Table 1.1 is included as Attachment 1 to the FSEIR.
Additionally, several Supplemental Mitigation Measures have been modified based
on the responses provided herein. All changes to Table 1.1 are shown in underline
and strikethrough.
2. Page 37: Under the “Circulation and Access” heading, the first sentence in the
second paragraph from the bottom shall be modified to read:
An approximately 10 15 foot wide trail would be provided on the site adjacent to the I-580
freeway.
3. Page 38: A new paragraph will be added, as follows:
Site lighting. The project site will contain lighting adequate for safety and security
purposes. Several of the light fixtures will be solar and wind powered and each individual
fixture will contain small solar panels/small-scale wind turbines to generate the electricity
needed to power the lights. Other light fixtures will be LED to ensure maximum efficiency.
4. Page 51. Fourth paragraph shall be modified as follows. The updated data does not
change the traffic impact analysis of the DSEIR. This information was provided as
background context only.
Freeways. Regional vehicular access to the site is provided primarily by the freeway system
that serves eastern Alameda County. Interstate 580 (I-580) is an east-west facility that runs
along the southern boundary of the project site. It spans between US Highway 101 in the
North Bay city of San Rafael and Interstate 5 just south of the Central Valley city of Tracy
with direct connections to Interstate 80, Interstate 680, Interstate 205, and State Route 238.
It has eight-to-ten travel lanes in the vicinity of the project site and carries approximately
214,000197,000 average daily vehicles and 15,800 peak hour vehicles between Hacienda
Drive and Tassajara Road. The nearest access to I-580 from the project site is provided by
the ramps on Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road.
The footnote on Page 51 shall also be modified to note that the source of the updated traffic
volume is: “California Department of Transportation, 2013. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the
California State Highway System.”
5. Page 67: Second paragraph shall be modified as follows:
An adjustment was made to account for internal trips between retail, which includes
restaurants and other retail, and residential land uses within the project site. The internal trip
adjustment was performed using procedures recommended by ITE for multi-use
developments. Internal trips are trips that would occur between different land uses on the
same site without accessing the external street system. Therefore, this analysis assumes
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 5
City of Dublin August 2014
direct access would be provided between the residential and commercial uses. While it is
reasonable to assume a small number of internal trips would occur during the AM peak
hour, ITE does not provide any guidance. The exclusion of AM peak hour internal trip
adjustments results in a conservative analysis. Further details on the internal trip
calculations may be found in Appendix A of Appendix 8.6.
6. Page 82: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-5 shall be modified as follows”
Supplemental Mitigation Measure -TR-5. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
Scarlett Drive, there is a significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP)-DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the recommended
measure to mitigate the impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard
due to the high rate of pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade
separated crossing. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade
pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be allocated
to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Although the Dublin Crossings project has not been
environmentally cleared, nor has engineering or right of way analysis been completed with
regards to the feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to
improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to
include a grade separated crossing at this location in its update to the TIF program to secure
project funding. Because the separated bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared,
and to ensure that the impacts are adequately mitigated, the Applicant/Developer is required
to provide a fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk
on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection.
7. Pages 106 and 107. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-TR-18 and SM-TR-19
shall be modified as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-18 and 19. Prior to issuance of any permit for
the project, the Project shall submit design plans that are consistent with applicable City
guidelines, polices and standards for review and approval by the City. Prior to the issuance
of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final Site Improvement Plans for
both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent with the Site Development Review
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans, which have been determined to be consistent with
applicable City guidelines, policies and standards, including but not limited to the City of
Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element, Chapter 8.76 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and approval by the City.
8. Page 110: The third paragraph on this page and Table 4.3-1 shall be modified as
follows based on information from DUSD. The updated data does not change the
conclusion in the DSEIR that the project’s impact on schools is less than significant.
Schools that would likely be affected by the proposed project include:
• Kolb Elementary, 3150 Palermo Way
• Dougherty Elementary, 5301 Hibernia
• Fallon Middle School, 3601 Kohnen Way
• Dublin High School, 8151 Village Parkway
• Valley High School, 6901 York Drive
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 6
City of Dublin August 2014
Table 4.3-1. Current Public School Enrollment v. Capacity
School Facility 2013/14 Enrollment School Capacity
Kolb Elementary 1009 1007
Dougherty Elementary 818 805 826 933
Fallon Middle School 1,110 1,232
Dublin High 1,922 1,737 2,198 2,232
Valley High 78 80 360
Source: Sherrie Sylva, Dublin Unified School District, 2013 3/31/2014
9. Page 114: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Park-1 shall be modified as
follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Park-1 (lack of adequate local parkland). As part
of the first final subdivision map for the project, the project developer(s) shall dedicate a
minimum two-acre Neighborhood Square to the City of Dublin. The size, configuration and
location of the Neighborhood Square shall be approved by the Dublin Parks and Community
Services Department. Project developer(s) shall satisfy remaining local park requirements
by paying fees to the City of Dublin prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to approval of
the first Final Subdivision Map for the project, the project developer(s) shall satisfy the
requirement to provide parkland through the payment of in-lieu fees to the City of Dublin
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. Page 116: The following paragraph will be added under the heading “IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs”:
The City of Dublin expresses its continued support of the Zone 7 Water Agency Salt
Management Plan. New development in Dublin will continue to pay impact fees to Zone 7
as the time of permit issuance to provide funding for the implementation of the Plan.
11. Page 117: The first paragraph on this page, Table 4.4-1, and the third paragraph on
this page shall be modified as follows based on updated information from DSRSD.
The updated data does not change the conclusion in the DSEIR that the project’s
impact due to wastewater generation is less than significant.
Estimated wastewater generation. DSRSD staff estimated the generation of wastewater
from The Green project as compared to the approved use of 305,000 sq. ft. of General
Commercial that would occur under currently approved development plans. This is shown
on Table 4.4-1, below. The table shows that the project would generate an additional
estimated 68,135 50,885 gallons of wastewater per day at build-out over the amount of
wastewater expected to be generated by the approved General Commercial use.
Table 4.4-1. The Green Project-Estimated Daily Wastewater Demand (gallons/day)
Land Use Amount Use Factor Wastewater (GPD)
Approved Use
General Commercial
Estimated Wastewater
Demand
305,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 30,500 gpd
Proposed Uses
Retail/Commercial 5000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.05 gpd/sq ft 250 500 gpd
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 7
City of Dublin August 2014
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.6 gpd/sq ft 21,000 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condominium
Townhouse
193 400 DU
207 DU
165 120 gpd/DU
220 gpd/DU
31,845 48,000 gpd
45,540 gpd
Total Estimated Project Wastewater Demand 98,635 52,000 gpd
Difference between Approved Project and Proposed Project +68,135 21,500 gpd
with Proposed
Project
Source: Stan Kolodzie, 4/25/14 Ryan Pendergraft, DSRSD, 5/29/2014
Therefore, the District has adequate wastewater treatment capacity at the regional plant to
accommodate the estimated 68,135 81,385 gallons of wastewater that would be generated
per day. No new or expanded wastewater facilities would be needed to serve the proposed
project nor would the amount of additional wastewater flows exceed the Regional Water
Board’s approved limit of the DSRSD wastewater treatment plan. The amount of additional
wastewater would result in a less-than-significant impact on a project and cumulative level.
12. Page 129: The last paragraph on this page and Table 4.4-6 shall be modified as
follows based on updated information from DSRSD. The updated data does not
change the conclusion in the DSEIR that the project’s impact due to water supply
demand is less than significant.
Supplemental water use impact. DSRSD UWMP includes demand from the development
of a 305,000 square foot retail/commercial project on the project site under the existing City
entitlements. Based on Table 4.4-6 below, this use would require an estimated 30,500
gallons per day at full build-out. The proposed project would generate an estimated need for
101,650 52,000 gallons of potable water per day, which would be an estimated 71,150
21,500 gallons of water per day greater than anticipated water demand in the DSRSD
UWMP. The project would use recycled water for exterior landscape irrigation and other
exterior uses. Therefore, estimated water use shown in Table 4.4-6 E does not include use
of potable water for landscape irrigation.
Table 4.4-6. The Green Project-Estimated Daily Water Demand (gallons/day)
Land Use Amount Water Use Factor Water Use (GPD)
Approved Use included in DSRSD UWMP
General Commercial 305,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 30,500 gpd
Proposed Project Uses
Retail/Commercial 5000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.05 gpd/sq ft 250 500 gpd
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.6 gpd/sq ft 21,000 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condo/Townhouse 400 DU 201 120 gpd/DU 80,400 48,000 gpd
Est. Water Demand. 101,650 52,000 gpd
Difference +71,150 21,500 gpd
Source: Stan Kolodzie, 4/13/14 Ryan Pendergraft, DSRSD, 5/29/2014
13. Page 132: The following paragraph shall be modified as follows:
Biological communities. Table 4.4-1 4.5-1 summarizes the area of each biological
community type observed in the Project Area. Non-sensitive biological communities in the
Project Area include non-native annual grassland and ruderal herbaceous stands. One
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 8
City of Dublin August 2014
potentially sensitive biological community is found in the project area. Descriptions for each
biological community are contained in the following sections.
14. Page 134: The following paragraph will be added under the heading “Present
Species”:
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. Present. A
breeding bird survey was conducted on April 22, 2014 by a WRA wildlife biologist. During
the visit, one active loggerhead shrike nest was observed in a coyote bush along the
northern fence of the Project Area, located near the Martinelli Way gate.1 The female was
observed incubating the nest and the male was foraging in the area. Any potential impacts
to this species will be reduced to less than significant by Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
15. Page 142: The following paragraph will be added after Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-1:
Given the presence of California Tiger Salamander (CTS) in the Eastern Dublin area,
mitigation of project wetlands impacts off-site through the implementation of SM-BIO-1 may
have impacts on CTS. The potential impacts on CTS from development and the
implementation of mitigation measures in Eastern Dublin and adjacent areas was studied in
the 1993 EDSP EIR, and Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0, MM 3.7/21.0, and MM 3.7/22.0 were
developed to address these impacts. The types of potential impacts on the CTS from any
off-site mitigation due to the implementation of SM-BIO-1 would be similar to the impacts
described and analyzed in the 1993 EDSP EIR. The 1993 EDSP EIR mitigation measures
noted above would apply to any future impacts of off-site mitigation and current regulatory
requirements by resource agencies would apply as well. With the implementation of the
1993 EDSP EIR mitigation measures and current regulatory requirements, the potential
impact on the CTS due to off-site implementation of mitigation measures to address project
wetlands impacts would be reduced to less than significant as identified in the 1993 EDSP
EIR.
16. Page 142: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 shall be modified as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other
special-status plant species). Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be
conducted on the site consistent with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s 2009
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Populations and natural
Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted throughout the blooming period throughout
the blooming period of those special-status for which suitable habitat is present. Two or
three separate surveys may be required to cover the blooming period of plants listed in
Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis (Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR) Table 4.4-
1. If populations/stands of a special-status species are identified during the surveys and
impacts cannot be avoided, , compensatory mitigation shall be provided, such as the
acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the species in question, purchase
of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the affected species, or
payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g.. a local land
trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations. The location of
1 Valcarcel, Tricia. 2014. Re: Breeding Bird Survey at The Green, Dublin, California (survey letter
report). April 22, 2014. 3pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 9
City of Dublin August 2014
mitigation sites shall be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife. In the case where
special-status plants are neither federal- or state-listed, the lead agency shall approve the
mitigation approach using the guidance provided by the Eastern Alameda County
Conservation Strategy in consultation with the City’s consulting biologist. Off-site
compensatory shall be acquired at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired:impacted). For
off-site mitigation options, measures shall be implemented (including contingency
measures) providing for the long-term protection of these species.
17. Page 144: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 shall be modified as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (impacts to breeding birds). Vegetation
removal and/or initial ground disturbance on the site shall occur during the non-breeding
season from September 1 to January 31. If instead these actions will occur from February 1
to August 31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted no more than
14 days prior to construction. Any common bird active nests found shall be protected by a
minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer. The buffer size may vary depending on bird species, the
location of the nest, and other factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a special-
status species is located on the site, a larger buffer would be required, such as a 100-foot
buffer for minor disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major disturbances. In the case of
special-status species, the size of buffers and other measures would be implemented based
on any applicable CDFW guidance and standards.
18. Page 190. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4 shall be modified as follows:
SM-AQ-4 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions). The final design of the
project shall include all requirements of the City Climate Action Plan, including policies A.1.4
(Bicycle Parking Requirements), A.1.5 (Streetscape Master Plan), A.1.8 (General Plan
Community Design and Sustainability Element), A.1.9 (Work with LAVTA to Improve
Transit), A.2.1 (Green Building Ordinance), A.2.5 (LED Streetlight Specifications), A.3.1
(Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance), A.3.6 (Commercial Recycling). In addition,
the project proponent is encouraged to participate in subsidy programs such as Climate
Action Plan polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee) and A.3.5 (Commercial
Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy programs such as policies A.3.7 (Multi-
Family Recycling), A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling), and A.3.9 (Curbside Organics Collection).
Implementation of these mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions, but not below
the significance thresholds. The project, as a whole, shall adopt a water use reduction goal
of at least 20 percent. A water use reduction plan shall be developed by the project
applicant that may include measures such as the installation of low-flow water fixtures in
showers and sinks, low-flush toilets, and the use of water efficient landscaping. The project
applicant shall implement a solid waste recycling program through recycling and composting
strategies, which results in a project-wide solid waste diversion rate of at least 20 percent.
Finally, the project shall exceed 2008 Title 24 Building Standards (which CalEEMod is
based on) by at least 20 percent in terms of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement
the supplemental list of greenhouse gas reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to
the Final SEIR.
19. Page 207: The first paragraph on this page shall be modified as follows:
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 10
City of Dublin August 2014
Alternative 3- Campus Office Development. Under this alternative the site would be
developed consistent with the existing Campus Office General Commercial General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation. This Alternative considers
construction of up 218,000 square feet of administrative, business and professional offices
and a Floor Area Ratio of 0.1835, consistent with the concept of a low-rise office campus
nearby properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Development of this alternative
would also include on-site surface parking lots, landscaping, signs and similar improvements
normally and customarily included in an office park development.
20. Page 213: Add Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Facilities Director to the list of
persons consulted under heading “City of Dublin Staff”.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 11
City of Dublin August 2014
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the
DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties.
Commenter Date
No. State Agencies
1.1 Department of Transportation 6/23/14
Local Agencies
2.1 Alameda County Public Works Agency 6/17/14
2.2 Alameda County Transportation
Commission
6/18/14
2.3 Alameda County Community
Development Agency
6/23/14
2.4 Dublin San Ramon Services District 6/23/14
Other Comments
3.1 Adams Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo 6/23/14
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 12
City of Dublin August 2014
Responses to DSEIR Comment Letters
Letter 1.1: California Department of Transportation
Comment 1.1.1: The commenter notes that the anticipated number of project trips (589 vehicles
in the a.m. peak and 650 in the pm peak) would result in impacts to the I-580/Hacienda Drive
interchange. The DSEIR should include a traffic analysis since more than 100 vehicles per hour
would result. The traffic analysis should also include turning movements per study intersection
under Existing, Project Only, 2035 and 2035 Cumulative + Project Conditions.
Response: Please see Tables 4.2-6, 4.2-7, 4.2-8, 4.2-14, 4.2-15, and 4.2-16 of the
DSEIR for the requested traffic analysis associated with this Caltrans facility.
Additionally, TR -11, TR -14, and TR 17 provides information on Arterial Level of Service
analysis along Hacienda Drive corridor in the vicinity of the I-580 interchange. .
Comment 1.1.2: The commenter requests the traffic impact fees to be used for project
mitigation. Development fees should require traffic impact fees based on projected traffic
volumes and/or cost estimated for public transportation fees necessitated by development.
Response: As required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and other applicable City
fee resolutions, the project developer will be required to pay the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee in place at the time building permits are issued. The Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee is designed to fund a wide variety of roadway, pedestrian,
bicycle and public transportation improvements throughout the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area. Additionally, the project developer will pay the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fees (TVTD) and Freeway Interchange Fee, both of
which will help fund regional transportation improvements.
Comment 1.1.3: The commenter requests that safety mitigation measures should be addressed
for the I-580 and Hacienda Drive interchange and the I-580 mainline. Coordination with Caltrans
is requested regarding roadway recovery zones, outer separation, fixed object and other items.
Response: The City of Dublin has always coordinated with Caltrans regarding traffic
safety and will continue to do so in the future. In regard to the Green project, the
development is proposed to occur wholly on private lands and no encroachment into
Caltrans right-of-way is required. The Project will not have any impacts on the safety
of the I-580 and Hacienda Drive interchange and the I-580 main line, so no safety
mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 13
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.1: Alameda County Public Works Agency
Comment 2.1: The commenter has reviewed the Notice of Preparation and has no comment on
the project.
Response: Comment noted. No further response is required.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 14
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.2: Alameda County Transportation Commission
Comment 2.2.1: On page 67 of the DSEIR, the document notes that a 5 percent trip reduction
has been assumed for walk to BART trips. This assumption may be low given proximity to
heavy rail and the proposed project density and land use mix. No trip reductions have been
taken for external trips by walking or bicycling even though the project would be located in close
proximity to shopping, dining and similar uses. Consideration should be given to using a trip
generation methodology to more accurately reflect transit-oriented developments or using a trip
reduction that is based on observed data from similar projects
Response: As for various other projects in this area, ITE trip generation manual, and
User’s Guide and Handbook were used for this project to generate trips for different land
uses. As per the ITE guidelines, vehicular trips were adjusted for Internal Trips
(Appendix 6 of the DSEIR), and for the Pass By trips (Table 4.2-4). Additionally a total of
5% trip reduction was applied for bicycle, pedestrian and transit trips in the area
including commercial developments to the north (Persimmon Place). The DSEIR
provides a brief discussion on the trip reduction approach on Page 67. Staff feels that
the trip adjustments are consistent with transportation mode share in the project vicinity.
Comment 2.2.2: Impact TR-1 and supplemental mitigation measure TR-1 analyzes impacts to
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection. The DSEIR should provide an assessment of
potential secondary impacts to other road users from the proposed supplemental mitigation
measure as is done for other impacts in the DSEIR.
Response: City’s thresholds of significance evaluate primary impacts to signalized
intersections which includes an evaluation of congestion and delays to vehicles. Similar
to many other traffic analyses that have been conducted in the City, the Synchro traffic
model was utilized for this project for the signalized intersection analyses. This model
inherently addresses pedestrian and bicycle access issues. For example, the model
allocates green time for all modes of transportation on the basis of pedestrian crossing
times at a crosswalk, and therefore the potential for secondary impacts to other road
users have already been accounted for in the analysis and there are no impacts
identified.
Comment 2.2.3: The commenter requests that the City consider other elements as part of a
proposed TDM such as minimum requirements for quality of bicycle parking, level of parking
provision, parking restrictions and parking pricing strategies.
Response: On-site parking provisions are governed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and,
at present, the Ordinance does not include policies on parking pricing or parking
restrictions. Also, these types of measures are not feasible for the proposed type of
development in Dublin. It is Staff’s opinion that due to the close proximity of the project
site to the BART station, and the site should include TDM measures to help meet the
future needs of resident and businesses. As per the mitigation measure SM-TR-2, the
City would require bicycle parking at a rate of 20% or an amount approved by the City, of
the required vehicular parking spaces. As part of the Site Development Review
application for the project, Staff has ensured that long-term bicycle parking will be
accommodated in bike lockers in addition to the short-term parking in bike racks. In
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 15
City of Dublin August 2014
addition, Conditions of Approval are being applied to the project that will require the
development of a TDM plan that contains those measures identified in Alternative
Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2 as well as additional measures that will be aimed at
reducing the need for parking and single-occupant vehicle use in the residential units at
the project site. At the time of review of the full TDM plan proposed by the
Applicant/Developer, the City’s Traffic Engineer will assess the additional measures
included in the plan to supplement those noted in Alternative Mitigation Measure SM-TR-
2.
Comment 2.2.4: Impact TR-4 and supplemental mitigation measure TR-4 analyzes impacts to
Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection. The DSEIR should provide an assessment
of potential secondary impacts to other road users from the proposed supplemental mitigation
measure as is done for other impacts in the DSEIR.
Response: The commenter is directed to the response to Comment 2.2.2, above.
Comment 2.2.5: Pages 82 and 83 of the DSEIR discuss a grade separated crossing for
pedestrians and bicyclists near the Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive intersection. The DSEIR
should clarify if project developers will be required to make mitigation payments towards
construction of this facility prior to the occupancy of the last building on the project site or prior
to the issuance of the first building permit.
Response: Since the grade-separated crossing has not yet been environmentally
cleared, and to ensure that the impacts are adequately mitigated, the project developer
is required to provide a fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing
the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection.
The timing for payment of fair share fee is prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
Comment 2.2.6: Regarding information on pages 106 and 107 of the DSEIR, commenter
requests that the City encourages design of project streets to promote walking and bicycling and
provide for additional treatment of bicycle facilities to facilitate mobility and safety at high volume
intersections near the site.
Response: Please see Supplemental Impacts review on pages 106 to 108 of the DSEIR,
including mitigation measures SM-TR-18, 19, and 20, which require compliance with the
City’s Bikeways Master Plan, Complete Streets policies, and other plans that promote
pedestrian and bicycle travel. Through Staff’s review of the Site Development Review
plans and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the project, Staff has ensured that bicycle and
pedestrian access is enhanced both inside the project and on the public streets in the
project vicinity. The pedestrian and bicycle circulation system that has been reviewed
will be further refined at the time Staff reviews the off-site improvement plans, and
special attention will be paid to maintain safety and access for alternate modes of
transportation at all intersections.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 16
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.3: Alameda County Community Development Agency
Comment 2.3.1: The commenter notes concerns about the potential conflicts between the
proposed mixed-use project and future office development on property to the west. Pursuant to
the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan that governs development to the west, office buildings of
up to 10 stories are allowed with 15-foot wide setbacks from Arnold Road on the eastern
boundary of the site. Future development on the Transit Center site, which could extend to 150
feet in height, could cast shadows on the westerly portion of The Green site.
Response: The potential for shade and shadow impacts on The Green site cannot be
analyzed in a meaningful way at this point in time because there is no proposed or
known development plans for Site D-2 on the Dublin Transit Center immediately to the
west of The Green project. Therefore, this impact cannot be accurately analyzed.
CEQA only requires the analysis of the Project’s impact on the environment. The
potential for shade and shadow due to development of the Site D-2 will be reviewed by
the City of Dublin at the time specific development proposals are filed for Site D-2.
Comment 2.3.2: There could be other compatibility issues between development on the Dublin
Transit site to the west and the project site, including construction noise, night lighting and
privacy concerns.
Response: The potential for construction noise impacts on The Green site will be less-
than-significant since future development projects on the Transit Center site will be
required to prepare and implement a Construction Noise Management Plan pursuant to
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 of the certified Dublin Transit Center EIR. This Construction
Noise Management Plan is required to contain, at minimum, limitation on the hours of
construction, use of mufflers on construction equipment, limitations on on-site
construction traffic speeds and similar items. Therefore, there would be no impact with
respect to construction noise.
The potential for spillover of light from the Transit Center site onto the Green site will be
reviewed by the City of Dublin Community Development Department Staff as part of
future Site Development Review applications for specific projects on Site D-2, once
submitted to the City.
The comment regarding future privacy concerns is not a CEQA issue and is not required
to be addressed in the DSEIR.
Comment 2.3.3: The commenter notes that the potential for future land use compatibility will be
greatest if lower residential development is allowed on the site. Typically, “Medium Density”
development in Dublin has resulted in single-family detached development dwellings which may
not be appropriate on this site.
Response: Please see Response to Comments 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 on issues regarding
alleged impacts of future office development on Site D-2 of the Transit Center and The
Green residential development The residential development on site will be a
combination of stacked-flat condominiums and townhouses in buildings that are primarily
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 17
City of Dublin August 2014
three- and four-stories with occasional two-story elements. There are no single-family
detached units proposed on the project site.
Comment 2.3.4: The commenter notes that future office development within the Dublin Transit
Center is a goal of the Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin. Residential
development on The Green site may not be compatible with office uses planned to the west of
the project site on the Transit Center site and may reduce the value of this property. The City is
encouraged to consider additional supplemental mitigation measures: increasing the residential
setback along Arnold Road to minimize future shade and shadow, construction noise and
privacy, proper noticing of future residents of planner mid-rise offices on the Transit Center site
and specifically prohibiting future single-family dwellings on the project site.
Response: Please see Response to Comments 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 on issues
regarding alleged impacts of future office development on Site D-2 of the Transit Center
on The Green. Based on the responses, no mitigation is required for The Green Project.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 18
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.4: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Comment 2.4.1: The commenter notes that DSRSD is the water and sewer service provider
to the City of Dublin and that the project will require new water, recycled water, and
wastewater facilities. The commenter also notes that the provision of services to the project
site must be done in a way so as to not interrupt DSRSD’s ability to continue to provide
service to properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2.4.2: The commenter notes that DSRSD operates a facility adjacent to the
project site and that future use of the project site should not interfere with DSRSD’s ability to
continue to access and use the facility.
Response: Comment noted. The project plans have been designed so that access
to DSRSD’s Turnout 4 will continue to be maintained.
Comment 2.4.3: The commenter notes that as a condition of providing potable water to the
project site, DSRSD will require the project developer to develop and operate a recycled
water distribution system for landscape irrigation on the project site.
Response. Comment noted. The project plans include utilizing recycled water for
irrigation.
Comment 2.4.4: DSRSD will require the Developer to enter into a planning agreement with
DSRSD to cover wastewater collection and wastewater treatment, which will include a
service analysis.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2.4.5: Disposal of wastewater in DSRSD’s service area is the responsibility of the
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency.
Response: Comment noted.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 19
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 3.1: Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo
Exhibits A-P to Letter 3.1 were reviewed for additional comments. Many of the Exhibits are
studies or reference materials cited in the comment letter that do not contain specific
comments on the project (See Exhibits B-P). It was determined that all relevant comments
that appeared in the exhibits (in particular, Exhibit A) were also stated in the body of Letter
3.1 itself. Therefore the exhibits were not annotated for additional comments and
responses. All responses to comments contained in Exhibits A-P are set forth in the
responses to Comment Letter 3.1 below.
Comment 3.1.1: The commenter states that the DSEIR fails to comply with the requirements
of CEQA and may not be used as part of the project approval. The commenter also
includes a Statement of Interests of the commenters. The Commenter generally states that
the DSEIR fails as an informational document and will result in significant adverse impacts.
The Comment contains a summary of the comments which are explained in more detail in
the Letter. The DSEIR does not adequately identify, evaluate and mitigate these potentially
significant impacts, including potential contamination of the site, reliance on out-of-date
mitigation measures addressing groundwater salinity, impacts to biological resources, lacks
findings regarding traffic impacts and does not include all feasible greenhouse gas impact
mitigation. The document must therefore be withdrawn and revised to correct the above
deficiencies.
Response: The commenter’s assertions regarding deficiencies of the DSEIR are
noted but are not correct. The City believes the DSEIR accurately and correctly
identifies the environmental baseline for each topic, provides a thorough analysis of
each potentially significant and provides feasible measures to mitigate most
significant impacts except for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable.
The specific responses to the general allegations made in this Comment are
contained in the following responses to comments in the remainder of these
responses.
Comment 3.1.2: The two main purposes of CEQA are to (1) inform decision makers and
public about the significant environmental impacts of the Project; and (2) avoid or reduce
significant environmental impacts where possible. The DSEIR fails to completely describe
the project and project setting and fails to disclose all potentially significant impacts.
Proposed mitigation measures are unenforceable, vague or undefined so the effectiveness
cannot be evaluated.
Response: The City believes that the commenter’s assertions are incorrect and The
Green DSEIR is fully consistent with the purposes and requirements of CEQA and
CEQA Guidelines. See below responses to comments for specific response to
general issues raised in this comment.
Comment 3.1.3: The DSEIR fails to disclose impacts or provide adequate mitigation for risks
from contaminated soils, including contamination from contaminated soil vapor, the potential
for herbicide contaminated soils and other discolored soils on the project site. No testing or
mitigation is identified for this contamination. Failure to identify, disclose and mitigate
potential contamination puts workers and residents at risk.
Response: See Responses to Comments 3.1-4 through 3.1.8, below.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 20
City of Dublin August 2014
Comment 3.1.4: The DSEIR fails to disclose or evaluate the potential for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) on the site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommends
an analysis of potential contamination from this source, including a human health risk
assessment.
Response: The DSEIR notes that the project site has been remediated from
contamination from previous site users for commercial and other non-residential
users as approved by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
(ACDEH). The ACDEH will permit the site to be utilized for residential use only after
evaluation of the site as required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. SM-
HAZ-1 notes that, if required by the ACDEH, additional testing of the site for
acceptability of the site for residential use may well be required and, if required by
the ACDEH, remediation of potentially contaminated materials may be required,
including any VOCs found on the site. As required by Supplemental Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1, no grading or construction can occur until authorized by the
ACDEH. Therefore, this impact will be fully mitigated in accordance with the
requirements of the ACDEH and, after ACDEH-approved remediation has occurred,
no impacts will remain with respect to VOCs.
Since the publication of the DSEIR, the Project Applicant/Developer and their
technical consultants have been in contact with the ACDEH to determine a suitable
Workplan for Further Investigation for the site. On June 11, 2014, the ACDEH
provided the Project Applicant/Developer with a letter noting that the proposed
workplan has been conditionally approved by the ACDEH (Attachments 4 and 5) and
that investigation on the site as outlined in the approved scope of work could
commence. Based on the foregoing, no revisions to the DSEIR are required.
Comment 3.1.5: The site could be contaminated by herbicides that were commonly used on
former military sites. The DSEIR fails to require any risks from this contaminant and does
not require any additional sampling or testing of the soil. No mitigation measures are
included in the DSEIR and a revised DSEIR should be prepared to disclose the results on
testing for herbicides.
Response: As noted above, the project site cannot be used for residential
development until reviewed and cleared by the ACDEH. A Workplan for Further
Investigation has been approved for the site by the ACDEH, which requires soil and
groundwater sampling in the former Fuel Depot area, shallow soil sampling along the
former Railroad Spur, sampling of soil stockpiles, and sampling for metals at five
locations on the project site. If it is determined by the ACDEH to be necessary
beyond the sampling noted above, the ACDEH may require additional sampling and
testing for potential presence of herbicides at concentrations above ACDEH
regulatory threshold levels. If found, significant concentrations of herbicide on the
site will be required to be remediated prior to site grading or excavation. Therefore,
this impact will be fully mitigated and no impacts will remain with respect to
herbicides, and revisions to the DSEIR are not warranted.
Comment 3.1.6: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identifies a small patch of
discolored soil on the site that may be contaminated. The DSEIR fails to disclose this and
does not require any additional testing or mitigation for this potential contamination. The
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 21
City of Dublin August 2014
DSEIR’s failure to disclose this potential contamination violates CEQA requirements to
describe the project’s environmental setting, evaluate all potential impacts and provide
mitigation measures to the extent feasible.
Response: As noted in the responses to comments 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 above, the
ACDEH has approved a Workplan for Further Investigation on the project site. The
results of the further investigation will identify those measures to be taken that are
necessary to ensure that the site meets ACDEH standards for residential occupancy.
If required by the ACDEH, the discolored soil will be required to be remediated if
found to be contaminated above ACDEH standards. Any soil remediation plan will
include measures to address any re-use and/or disposal of contaminated soil.
Therefore, the DSEIR provides adequate mitigation for any potential soil
contamination on-site and there is no need for revisions to the DSEIR.
Comment 3.1.7: The DSEIR fails to disclose any potential impacts from a small stockpile of
soil on the site, including potential re-use on the site and the possibility of off-site disposal.
The failure of the DSEIR to disclose, evaluate and mitigate potential impacts from this small
soil stockpile violates CEQA.
Response: Please see the response to Comment 3.1.6 above. The DSEIR does
provide adequate mitigation with respect to this topic.
Comment 3.1.8: The DSEIR must be revised to adequately disclose and investigate
potentially contaminated materials and provide appropriate mitigation measures to protect
the health and safety of construction workers.
Response: The Green DSEIR adequately describes hazardous conditions on the site
and provides adequate mitigation to ensure the protection of workers and adjacent
residents. Any future remediation plan/Corrective Action Plan that is approved by
ACDEH will include measures to protect the health and safety of construction
workers by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Health and Safety Plan
that addresses the safe handling and transportation of contaminated soil (See
Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). Revisions to the DSEIR are not
warranted.
Comment 3.1.9: The DSEIR is legally inadequate since it fails to address potential impacts
related to groundwater salinity raised by a Trustee Agency, Zone 7. Although identified as
an impact in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0, this mitigation measure no longer adequately reduces salinity
impacts to a less-than-significant level. Recent studies by the Zone 7 water agency indicate
that with the increased use of recycled water, additional studies need to be done to mitigate
salinity of groundwater. The commenter notes that the DSEIR failure to disclose and
evaluate this impact violates CEQA’s disclosure requirements and the document must be
revised to provide a meaningful evaluation of these impacts.
Response: The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the impact of the use of recycled water
on the main groundwater basin, including salinity. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
groundwater salinity as a potential impact and included a mitigation measure
requiring coordination of recycled water projects with Zone 7's salt mitigation
program to mitigate this impact to less than significance. Mitigation Measure
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 22
City of Dublin August 2014
3.5/20.0 requires construction of a recycled water distribution system to be in
accordance with all applicable regulations of the State Department of Health
Services, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and Zone 7.
The commenter offers no validation to the claim and is incorrect when stating that the
“Zone 7 District itself, has stated that based on new information, its current mitigation
is no longer sufficient.” The actual letter from Zone 7 staff dated August 9, 2013, in
response to the Notice of Preparation, merely requests that “potential impacts to
groundwater quality need be considered in the supplemental CEQA review.”
The same letter notes Zone 7’s appreciation of “Dublin’s support of Zone 7’s efforts
in managing and mitigating the salinity of the Livermore Groundwater Basin through
our Salt Management Plan and groundwater demineralization operations.” The Salt
Management Plan can be found on Zone 7’s website at:
http://www.zone7water.com/publications-reports/reports-planning-documents/158-
salt-management-plan-2004
City of Dublin Staff’s recent discussions with Zone 7 Staff have revealed that the
project site has been included in Zone 7 calculations for use of recycled water
(Source: Tom Rooze, Zone 7, 2014). As noted in the Salt Management Plan, one of
the main goals of the Plan is to “to achieve sustainable groundwater quality as well
as quantity and to allow for increased use of recycled water . . .” The use of recycled
water for irrigation at The Green Project is consistent with this goal and subject to
Plan requirements.
Further, the proposed Green project will be required to pay water connection fees to
Zone 7 to assist in funding the District’s Salt Management Plan (source: J. Chahal,
Zone 7, 2014). Zone 7 also requests that the City include a statement in the Final
SEIR requiring continued support of Zone 7 in implementing Zone 7’s Salt
Management Plan (See Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final SEIR).
Comment 3.1.10: The DSEIR is inadequate because it fails to establish the environmental
setting of the project resulting in inadequate disclosure and assessment of the project’s
potentially significant biological impacts. Specifically, this includes the proximity of the
project’s Congdon Tarplant population and other important populations of this plant, an
identification of other special-status plant species on the project site, impacts to burrowing
owl populations, the presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp on the site and the presence of
protected bat species on the site. The DSEIR fails to adequately describe the existing
environmental setting which is needed to meaningfully analyze project impacts. The DSEIR
analysis is based on a single limited non-protocol level reconnaissance survey that was not
adequate to establish biological resources on the site. As a result, the City lacks substantial
evidence to support a determination that proposed mitigation measures will be sufficient to
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Response: For responses to particular comments summarized in this comment, see
later responses to comments. On the issue of inadequate description of or
information on existing setting, the commenter is incorrect. During preparation of the
DSEIR, the project site was thoroughly traversed by both a wildlife biologist and a
botanist/wetland specialist on the WRA staff on August 1, 2013. The level of detail
used in these surveys was equivalent to a rare plant survey and a burrowing owl
survey. The surveys occurred at an ideal time for observing late-blooming plant
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 23
City of Dublin August 2014
species such as Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). The
surveys also occurred during the portion of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
nesting season when owls and owl sign are most detectable (later spring/ summer
when chicks are viewable outside the burrow) and evidence of use most abundant.
WRA biologists are experts in assessing properties for the habitat conditions likely to
support special status species, so the onsite observations provide substantial
evidence for the determination of whether additional special status species are likely
to occur there. Protocol surveys for special status species were not recommended
for the Project Site because either suitable habitat was not present, or because (in
the case of burrowing owl) there was no evidence of site use. Under these
circumstances, the preconstruction survey for burrowing owl required in the DSEIR is
a sufficient measure to verify that the burrowing owls are not present. However, the
mitigation provides measures to ensure that if any burrowing owl is found on-site,
impacts to the burrowing owl will be reduced to less than significant. Similarly, while
the site appears to be unsuitable for most spring-blooming rare plant species, a
spring survey for rare plants was required as mitigation in the DSEIR to verify
absence or require compensatory mitigation for any protected plants that are found.
As the commenter notes, “a City has discretion to determine what protocol level
surveys may be necessary to provide a complete and accurate description of the
project setting.” In the case of The Green, the City of Dublin reasonably relied on the
expert biological analysis completed for the DSEIR and included supplemental
mitigation measures based on the existing environmental setting for the project.
Comment 3.1.11: The DSEIR lacks sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that vernal
pool fairy shrimp are unlikely to occur on the site. The site has four seasonal wetlands that
have the potential to support this species. The applicant has not conducted protocol-level
surveys needed to determine the presence of vernal pool fair shrimp. The commenter claims
that vernal pool fairy shrimp may also exist in vernal-pool like habitats and the DSEIR
provides no evidence that vernal pool habitat is necessary for this species to occur on the
site. The commenter also notes that disking and grading of the site do not preclude the
potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp. Although the DSEIR notes that seasonal
wetlands on the site appear to be the result of past alterations of the landscape, these
wetlands have existed long enough to be dominated by plants often found in seasonal
wetlands. This indicates that the wetlands have not been disked for several years, which is
long enough for vernal pool fairy shrimp to colonize or recolonize the site following
disturbance. Therefore, since potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp exists on the site,
protocol-level surveys should have been conducted to confirm or refute the presence of this
species.
Response: As described in the above response, WRA biologists are experts at
assessing properties for the habitat conditions likely to support special status
species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Plan,
vernal pool complexes [including wetlands] that cannot support a viable population
are not considered suitable for vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS; Branchinecta lynchi)2.
The seasonal wetlands onsite are not natural features, but were recently created in
2008 during development activities3. Prior to 2008, the project site was maintained in
2 USFWS. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon.
3 WRA. 2013. Delineation of Waters of the U.S., “The Green” Mixed Use Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California. 59pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 24
City of Dublin August 2014
a developed state for many decades and did not contain wetlands on or adjacent to
the site4. Soil disturbance such as grading and disking has occurred numerous
times, going back many decades. There are no records of VPFS occurring on the
project site or within 5 miles of the site5; and there are no areas of suitable VPFS
habitat within more than 5 miles67. Therefore, contrary to assertions made by the
commenter, land management actions at the site in combination with an absence of
available suitable habitat on and contiguous with the site preclude these features
from supporting a viable population over time and thus are not suitable for VPFS.
The commenter further suggests that VPFS could have colonized the seasonal
wetlands on the site in the period of time since their creation in 2008. However,
according to the USFWS, flooding and wildlife movement within vernal pool
complexes are the only documented dispersal mechanisms for VPFS8. Based on
this, it is highly unlikely that pools may have been colonized given the absence of
any suitable habitat in the vicinity. Given these facts and observations, there is no
substantial evidence or reasonable basis to believe that VPFS could be present on
the project site, and thus protocol surveys are unwarranted.
Comment 3.1.12: The commenter notes that the DSEIR fails to establish the scope of the
burrowing owl population of on the project site and fails to disclose the status and
demography of the local and regional burrowing owl population that may be affected by loss
of potential breeding and foraging habitat. Although the DSEIR acknowledges that the site
provides potential burrowing habitat, it fails to conduct the surveys necessary to establish
the scope of burrowing owl habitat use of the site. Instead, efforts were limited to a single
reconnaissance-level survey during an unreliable time of year for establishing owl use of the
site. In addition, the document fails to disclose the amount of burrowing owl habitat on the
site. California Department of Fish & Wildlife have concluded that four independent surveys
are necessary to determine presence of owls and data from the four surveys are necessary
for avoiding, minimizing and properly mitigating the impacts of the project.
The DSEIRs also underreports the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site and the
amount of habitat that would be eliminated by the project. The commenter notes that the
amount of potential habitat on the site is 27.79 acres, more than double the amount reported
in the DSEIR.
The DSEIR also fails to disclose the proximity of nearby Camp parks burrowing habitat and
the continuing vitality of burrowing owl in the region. Burrowing owl populations have been
extirpated or nearly extirpated in much of the Bay Area and are now generally found in the
Altamont Hills and the Camp Parks area. The DSEIR must be revised to establish and
disclose the proximity and importance of the Camp Parks burrowing owl population in order
that the project’s potential impacts to this core population may be evaluated and appropriate
mitigation identified.
4 City of Dublin. 2003. IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR. State Clearinghouse #2003092076.
5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity
Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. Accessed July 2013-July 2014.
6 California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW). 2014. EcoAtlas. http://www.ecoatlas.org. Accessed July
2013-July 2014.
7 Google Earth. 2014. Aerial imagery, including historic imagery 1993-2014. Accessed July 2013-July 2014.
8 USFWS. 2007. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation.
USFWS Sacramento. September.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 25
City of Dublin August 2014
Response: WRA biologists concluded that burrowing owl does not occur on the site
and that the site provides little value as potential breeding or foraging habitat for
nearby owl populations. This conclusion is based on evidence collected during the
site assessment which corresponded with a period in which signs from recent
nesting activities would have been observable
WRA biologists have considerable experience and are experts in conducting
burrowing owl surveys, and the 2013 survey in support of the BRA had a level of
detail equivalent to a burrowing owl survey. WRA biologists have expertise and
experience in recognizing indicators of recent use of a site by this species, such as
pellets, whitewash, feathers, and prey remains typically found near burrows. No owls
or owl signs (indicators) were observed during surveys used as the basis of the
DSEIR, whereas signs have been observed by WRA biologists at other occupied
sites around the Bay Area on a year-round basis. There are no records of burrowing
owl ever using the project site5. A subsequent survey for burrowing owl was also
performed by WRA at the peak of the 2014 breeding season9, which similarly found
no owls or owl sign. Similarly, no owls or owl sign were observed during WRA’s
November 2013 wetland delineation, or during a follow-up visit in March 2014. WRA
has recommended preconstruction surveys as a precautionary measure to confirm
the absence of the species on the site and require mitigation in accordance with
CDFW protocols and standards if burrowing owls are found. These measures are
included in SM-BIO-3. The mitigation measure (SM-BIO-3) requires that the pre-
construction surveys conform with the CDFW protocol for pre-construction surveys.
A series of four surveys was not recommended as a component of the SEIR
because of the lack of indications that owls use the site. The initial site survey, a
subsequent survey, and subsequent site visits support this. The surveys, actions,
and mitigation measure in the SEIR are adequate to address burrowing owl impacts
under CEQA.
The commenter cites the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) 2012
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation10 in support of his recommendation to
conduct multiple surveys for burrowing owl within the project site. It is important to
note that the CDWF staff report provides recommendations with regard to burrowing
owls, not requirements. Based on the considerations described above, it was
determined that multiple surveys within the project site were unwarranted as part of
the SEIR.
The commenter describes the project site as being of potential value for the
population of burrowing owls located in the Camp Parks area to the northeast. It is
important to note that these owls have been consistently observed to utilize the same
general areas, while there are no known records of owls utilizing the project site.
Occurrence records for the Camp Parks population show that the owls typically
utilize two general areas, including a number of contiguous vacant lots approximately
½ mile to 1 mile northeast of the project site, and undeveloped land 1-2 miles north
9 Valcarcel, Tricia. 2014. Re: Breeding Bird Survey at The Green, Dublin, California (survey letter report). April
22, 2014. 3pp.
10 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California
Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 36pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 26
City of Dublin August 2014
of the site near the County line.11 Based on these considerations, there is no reason
to believe that the project site is of substantial importance to the burrowing owl
population in the Camp Parks area.
The commenter cites the 2010 Wilkerson and Siegel study as a basis for concluding
owls have been extirpated or nearly extirpated in six San Francisco Bay Area
counties. However, the methodology in this study included only passive
observational surveys performed by volunteers. The commenter notes that it is
difficult to identify a breeding pair through observation alone due to cryptic coloration,
use of burrows, and tendency to flush. Thus a more robust survey would have
included transect surveys to look for evidence of use (or “sign”) such as whitewash,
prey remains, pellets, or feathers. Furthermore, unpublished data from other
consultants has revealed burrowing owls in some Bay Area counties can occur in
taller grassland habitats resulting in fewer owls being identifiable through traditional
passive surveys. Close inspection of a site for evidence of use is likely more reliable
than a few passive surveys and thus, WRA’s assessment provides substantial
evidence for detecting presence or absence of a breeding pair at the site.
Comment 3.1.13: The DSEIR fails to provide sufficient project setting information to describe
special-status plants may occur on the site and to incorporate the results of protocol-level
surveys for these plants. The commenter’s biologist identified the following special-status
plant species that should be surveyed: heartscale, btittlescale, lesser saltscale, big-scale
balsamroot, big tarweed, Mt. Diablo fairy lantern, palmate salty bird’s beak, San Joaquin
spearscale, Diablo helianthella, Brewer’s western flax, shining navarretia, prostrate vernal
pool navarettia, saline clover. Mitigation measure SM-BIO-2 refers to the wrong table in the
SEIR.
Response: The level of detail used in the surveys in support of the DSEIR, including
a thorough traversal of the project site by an experienced and expert botanist, was
equivalent to a rare plant survey for late-blooming species. WRA biologists are
experts and very experienced in surveying for special-status plants and are
experienced in recognizing the habitat conditions likely to support these species. In
many cases, WRA biologists have firsthand experience with the particular species of
special-status plants known to occur in the San Francisco Bay Area. Even during a
late-season survey such as the one performed in support of the DSEIR, numerous
indications inform biologists about the habitat conditions and plant species likely to
be present earlier in the growing season. For example, in many cases the senesced
(older) remains of early-season vegetation are still present and recognizable. The
associations of these species along with topography and other factors allow for an
understanding of the community types present and whether adequate conditions
exist to support rare plants. Based on these observations during the survey, all early-
season (spring-blooming) special status plant species known to occur in the vicinity
were determined to be unlikely to occur or to have no potential for occurrence.
However, as a precautionary measure, an early-season survey for special-status
plants and potential additional mitigation are requirements of the DSEIR (SM-BIO-2).
11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and
Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. Accessed July 2013 – July 2014.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 27
City of Dublin August 2014
With regard to late-blooming special-status plant species known to occur in the
vicinity of the Project Site, the fact that the species was not observed along with a
lack of suitable habitat conditions is a sufficient basis to conclude that the species
has no potential to occur onsite, contrary to the commenter’s assertions. In
particular, the survey was conducted at an ideal time for the detection of many of the
species mentioned by the commenter, including heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), lesser saltscale (Atriplex miniscula), big
tarweed (Blepharizonia plumosa), palmate salty bird’s beak (Chloropyron palmatum),
and San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana). In addition, the survey occurred
one day outside of the established blooming period for Brewer’s western flax
(Hesperolinon breweri), shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians), and
prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), although these species would
likely still have been observable during the survey. For the remaining four species
specifically mentioned by the commenter and any other spring-blooming special-
status plant species, the required spring survey under Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2
would be sufficient for detection of these species if they are indeed present on the
project site and provides measures to address any impacts on protected plants if
found on site.
Regarding the comment on the table, the commenter is correct. The correct
reference should be to Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis
(Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR). The Clarifications and Modifications section of the
FSEIR reflects this change.
In summary, the DSEIR adequately addresses the issue of special-status plants for
the following reasons: Surveys in support of the DSEIR detected Congdon’s tarplant
and adequately mapped the population of this species within the Project Site;
surveys in support of the DSEIR confirmed that other late-blooming special-status
species were absent from the site; surveys in support of the DSEIR found that
habitat within the site was of low quality for spring-blooming special-status plant
species, or suitable habitat was absent altogether, such that these species are
unlikely to occur or have no potential for occurrence; a rare plant survey for spring-
blooming species will be conducted as a precautionary measure under Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-2; performing the spring survey after completion of the DSEIR is
adequate due to the low potential for detection of additional special-status plant
species.
Comment 3.1.14: The DSEIR discloses that a robust population of Congdon’s tarplant
occurs on the project site. This species has been identified as a rare and imperiled species.
Additional information is needed in the DSEIR regarding the ecological context of Congdon’s
tarplant population on the site. Without information on the scope and location of this
population, the public and decision makers are precluded from being able to evaluate the
relative severity of the population of this species and from evaluating the sufficiency of
proposed mitigation.
Response: Congdon’s tarplant is distributed from the San Francisco Bay Area to San
Luis Obispo County, California. Clusters of occurrence records signifying regional
populations are centered in the Salinas area, around the margins of South San
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 28
City of Dublin August 2014
Francisco Bay, and in an area from the foothills of Mt. Diablo to the Livermore
Valley12. The latter area includes the project site.
Based on the observations of WRA botanists with experience in the San Francisco
Bay Area and expertise on this plant, Congdon’s tarplant has a fairly wide distribution
with robust populations in many areas, and in areas where the species has been
documented, numerous undocumented occurrences are often found in the
surrounding area. This suggests that the species may merit a rarity designation lower
than what has been assigned by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)13.
Documented occurrences in the Livermore Valley area and undocumented
occurrences such as the population within the project site also suggest that this
species is widely distributed in the vicinity. The distribution of Congdon’s tarplant in
the western portion of the Project Site closely matches the area that received the
most substantial soil disturbance during development activities in 20083,
demonstrating that this species has the ability to respond to disturbance and even
benefit from it. Congdon’s tarplant was not reported within the Project Site during
assessments in 20034, suggesting that this species recently colonized the site or had
a very limited presence on the site prior to earthwork activities in 2008.
Mitigation is required for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant within the project site (see
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2) and the response of this species to
disturbance suggests that this species could be successfully introduced to an
appropriate mitigation site in the vicinity. Due to the project site’s location close to an
urban center, and due to the site’s past and current uses as a development site, the
nearly-isolated population of Congdon’s tarplant within the project site is not ideal for
preservation, and mitigation through establishment of this species at a more
appropriate site would be beneficial for long-term preservation of the species. The
exact details of mitigation will be determined in coordination with CDFW. The
mitigation includes specific standards, such as a minimum 1:1 ratio, allowing for
complete replacement of the population impacted within the project site which will
result in a less than significant impact.
In summary, the DSEIR adequately addresses Congdon’s tarplant for the following
reasons: Congdon’s tarplant has numerous occurrences in the San Francisco Bay
Area and in the Livermore Valley area; the location of Congdon’s tarplant on-site was
specifically determined through surveys; impacts to the population of Congdon’s
tarplant within the site will be mitigated through complete replacement at a site
appropriate for long-term protection; the population of Congdon’s tarplant within the
project site likely appeared or dramatically expanded recently in response to human
activities, and the on-site occurrence does not necessarily represent a natural or
historic population.
Comment 3.1.15: The commenter notes that three special-status bat species (pallid bat,
Townsend’s big-ear bat and Yuma myotis) have a moderate potential of roosting on an
existing building on the site. Surveys were not conducted to determine if any bat species
12 Calflora [web application]. 2014. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database. http://www.calflora.org/
Accessed: July 2013-July 2014.
13 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed:
July 2013-July 2014.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 29
City of Dublin August 2014
were using the building as a roost site. The City’s failure to establish baseline conditions
precludes the public, resource agencies and the scientific community from being able to
submit informed comments pertaining to project impacts and from having those comments
vetted during the environmental review process.
Response: WRA biologists assumed presence of bat species on the site. The SEIR
contains a mitigation measure (SM-BIO-5) which requires that a pre-construction
survey be performed prior to building removal and mitigation if bats are found.
Removal of any roost site for these three species is considered a significant impact
regardless of the type of roost and thus baseline surveys do not yield any more
valuable information pertaining to the type of mitigation that would be employed as
both the impact and the mitigation would be the same whether detected initially or in
the future. For these reasons, the assumed presence and mitigation requirement
complies with CEQA standards.
Comment 3.1.16: The DSEIR fails to disclose the potential for the presence of vernal pool
fairy shrimp within on-site seasonal wetlands. As a result, the DSEIR fails to evaluate
potential impacts of the project on this species and fails to include mitigation measures. The
DSEIR lacks substantial evidence to confirm or refute the presence of this species and must
be revised to disclose and evaluate this potential impact.
Response: As discussed in the Response to Comment 3.1.11, the site does not
contain suitable habitat for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and thus there would be no
impacts to this species and no mitigation would be required.
Comment 3.1.17: The DSEIR fails to disclose the potential for the presence of burrowing owl
habitat on the site and fails to disclose the proximity of the site to critical Camp Parks
burrowing owl populations. As a result, the DSEIR fails to evaluate potential impacts of the
project on this species and fails to include mitigation measures. The DSEIR lacks substantial
evidence to confirm or refute the presence of this species and must be revised to disclose
and evaluate this potential impact.
Response: As discussed in Response to Comment 3.1.12, WRA biologists
concluded that burrowing owl does not currently occupy the site. While unlikely,
should owls be documented at the site in the future, adequate compensatory
mitigation for the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat would be done in accordance
with CDFW requirements as stated in the DSEIR (see Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-3).
Comment 3.1.18: The DSEIR fails to evaluate potential impacts to burrowing owls from
proposed temporary or permanent closure of burrows. Proposed supplemental mitigation set
forth in the DSEIR that requires an exclusion plan for burrows is a potentially significant
impact under CDFW guidelines. Temporary or permanent closure may result in a significant
loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction, increased stress on burrowing owls and
reduced reproduction rates, increased depredation, increased energetic costs and risks
associated with the need to find and compete for available burrows, the DSEIR must be
revised to thoroughly analyze these impacts.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 30
City of Dublin August 2014
The commenter notes research that indicates most translocation projects have resulted in
fewer breeding pairs of burrowing owls at the translocated site and translocated projects
have failed to produce self-sustaining populations.
The proposed Supplemental Mitigation Measure is inadequate in that it does not identify
what will happen if avoidance is not feasible during the breeding season. Also, the
Supplemental Mitigation Measure does not require the applicant to establish whether the
burrowing owls occupy the project site until immediately prior (14 days or less) to ground
disturbance. It is impractical to assume the applicant would be able to develop and
implement an effective exclusion plan according to CDFW standards during the narrow time
frame.
Because the DSEIR fails to provide a burrowing owl exclusion plan or fundamental details
associated with that plan, it is impossible for the public, resource agencies and decision
makers to evaluate the probability that there will be significant impacts evicted from project
site. The DSEIR must be revised to provide sufficient detail on proposed eviction activities to
permit the evaluation of impacts from these activities.
Response: Passive relocation activities as prescribed in the 2012 CDFW Staff
Report are considered an avoidance measure to ensure no take occurs as result of
construction activities. If relocation is necessary, such activities will be done in
consultation with CDFW at which time the department may prescribe additional
avoidance measures to ensure any direct or indirect effects are minimized. The
commenter also concludes that most translocation projects are unsuccessful. While
there is some evidence of unsuccessful translocation efforts, there is also evidence
of successful translocation efforts. WRA has conducted highly successful
translocations for previous projects resulting in greater numbers of owl pairs than
previously documented14.
WRA agrees with the commenter that it is impracticable to prepare and implement a
successful relocation plan within 14 days. The purpose of the minimum 14-day
window as set forth in Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 to conduct nest
surveys is based on the potential for owls to re-nest in an area within a short time
frame. If documented, site development would be delayed until approval can be
obtained to passively relocate the owls. Nowhere in the DSEIR does it state that
work will begin within 14 days of the nest survey, only that the survey should be
performed no more than 14 days prior to the planned construction start date.
Comment 3.1.19: The DSEIR’s reliance on protective buffers around any occupied nests to
mitigate impacts of project construction is not supported by substantial evidence because it
fails to identify the buffer size. The mitigation should be revised to reflect CDFW guidelines,
which indicate that buffers may need to be up to 500 meters, depending on the time of year
and level of disturbance. The mitigation measure must be specific, enforceable and feasible
to identify specific standards.
Response: As recommended by WRA biologists, Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3
requires a pre-construction survey prior to site development to ensure no presence
14 WRA, Inc. 2007. Burrowing Owl 2007 Annual Monitoring Report, Pacific Commons Preserve, Fremont,
Alameda County, California. 5pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 31
City of Dublin August 2014
of burrowing owls. If owls are determined to be present during the nesting season,
SM-BIO-3 requires that a buffer be established in consultation with CDFW around
the active nest. While the actual buffer distance is not stated, the specific standard is
500 meters. A smaller buffer may be utilized with approval from CDFW; the
minimum buffer for low levels of disturbance is 200 meters.
Comment 3.1.20: The commenter notes that reliance on compensatory mitigation to reduce
impacts to burrowing owl below a level of significance is not supported by substantial
evidence. Proposed compensatory mitigation is vague, unenforceable and inconsistent with
the regional requirements of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Proposed
supplemental mitigation measures fails to identify specific conditions which would trigger
compensatory mitigation, establish success standards for proposed mitigation and a
mechanism to ensure these standard are met and demonstrate that there is a nearby off-site
location for acquisition of compensatory mitigation.
The mitigation ratio applied to the project must be disclosed in order to permit assessment
of its adequacy. Generally a 1:1 ratio is required to mitigate burrowing owl impacts, but may
not be sufficient to reduce impacts below levels of less-than-significance due to the rapid
decline of species in the immediate vicinity along with the limited scope of nearby remaining
habitat and proximity of the Camp Parks owl population. Adherence to the EACCS
compensatory mitigation should be required at a standardized rate of 3:1 or 3.5:1 if the
mitigation site is in a different core area. Anything less cannot be assumed to reduce
regional impact to a less-than-significant level.
The DSEIR should be revised to include a provision that compensatory mitigation shall be
required for project impacts to burrowing owl and their habitat at the EACCS compensatory
mitigation ratio standard for burrowing owl at a 3:1 ratio. Because the DSEIR does not
contain this provision, the impact to burrowing owl and their habitat would remain significant.
Response: The commenter states that the DSEIR is inadequate because it does not
do the following: 1) identify the specific conditions that would trigger mitigation; 2)
establish success standards for the proposed mitigation; and 3) demonstrate that
there is a nearby off-site location to relocate owls to. Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-3 contained in the DSEIR requires that if a breeding pair is found
on the site during the pre-construction survey then additional protection steps would
be required. Standards under the mitigation are based on CDFW standards. The
final mitigation plan would be developed in coordination with CDFW per the
guidelines stated in the 2012 CDFW Staff Report.
While the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) will be used for
guidance, the measures contained in the document are to be used as guidance, not
requirements. The City of Dublin has accepted the EACCS as guidance for public
construction projects, however the City does not require compliance with the EACCS
for private development projects. As required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-BIO-3, an appropriate ratio will be determined in consultation with CDFW if owls
are found to nest at the site. The supplemental mitigation measure complies with
CEQA and adequately reduces impacts to burrowing owl to a less-than-significant
level.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 32
City of Dublin August 2014
Comment 3.1.21: The DSEIR fails to identify what special-status plant species may be
impacted by proposed project construction and the scope and significance of the plant
populations to be impacted. Due to lack of detail in the DSEIR there could be other impacts
and further study is needed. Also, it is impossible to determine whether effective mitigation
may be designed or alternative project designs considered. Supplemental Mitigation
Measure BIO-2 contains requirements that are vague and inconsistent with the Eastern
Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Therefore, the details provided in this supplemental
mitigation measure are not sufficient to support a finding that compliance with this measure
will reduce this impact below a level of significance.
Response: As described in the Response to Comment 3.1.14, the level of mitigation
offered for Congdon’s tarplant is considered to be adequate to reduce the project’s
impact to less than significant based on WRA’s knowledge and expertise with
respect to this species. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 contains specific mitigation
requirements for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant on the project site. The species’
success in re-populating even disturbed sites demonstrates that replacement in an
appropriate nearby mitigation site will be successful. Final details of mitigation will be
determined in coordination with CDFW. The mitigation will be a minimum 1:1 ratio,
allowing for complete replacement of the population impacted within the project site.
While the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) will be used for
guidance, the measures contained in the document are to be used as guidance, not
requirements. The City of Dublin has accepted the EACCS as guidance for public
construction projects. However, the City does not require compliance with the
EACCS for private development projects. .
Comment 3.1.22: The DSEIR notes that bat foraging habitat on a regional scale is not
expected to be significantly impacted on a regional scale. This statement is conclusory and
not supported by any substantial evidence. A substantial amount of bat foraging habitat has
already been lost to urban development and other activities. Remaining habitat is under
threat for conversion. Therefore, loss of bat foraging habitat on the project site is a
potentially significant impact and must be evaluated in a revised DSEIR.
Moreover, the supplemental mitigation included in the DSEIR is insufficient to support a
finding that the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a level of less-
than-significant. Specifically, critical periods of the life cycle of bats vary by species, location
and year. Removal of the existing on-site building during the months of September and
October may not be effective. Also, the DSEIR fails to identify survey techniques to be
implemented. Detection of bats often requires specialized techniques that may be effective
for one species but not another. The DSEIR fails to establish standards to ensure that
preconstruction surveys do not have a significant impact on bats in the existing marketing
building. Pallid bats and Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to be sensitive to human
disturbance. The DSEIR fails to cite or identify standards and policies for any relocation plan
consistent with US Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and
EEACCS standard and policies. Such policies and standards cited in the DSEIR may not
exist. Moreover, even if bats are properly excluded, there may not be a suitable alternative
roost available in the vicinity and the local population may be extinguished. Survey protocols
must be specifically identified by bat species in order to ensure that the proposed mitigation
is effective and meaningful.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 33
City of Dublin August 2014
Response: As discussed in Response to Comment 3.1.15, the loss of any roost site
is a significant impact. Avoidance measures have been prescribed to minimize
impacts. The period from September through October represents the period when
bats are the least likely to be present, thus minimizing any potential for take. A pre-
construction survey to allow removal of the building when bats are not present
reduces potential impacts to a less than significant level by assuring take does not
occur. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 requires that if bats are found, an
appropriate relocation plan shall be prepared consistent with EACCS and in
consultation with CDFW to ensure impacts to special-status bats will be reduced to a
less-than-significant level. The CDFW standard is that relocation and suitable roost
replacement measures must be established through direct consultation with CDFW.
WRA does not agree with the commenter that development of the site would
constitute an impact on a regional scale. This conclusion is based on the small size
of the site compared with suitable habitats in the surrounding regional area not
currently proposed for development.
The commenter notes that pre-construction surveys could potentially impact bats due
to the sensitivity of these species. In fact, the site has been actively disturbed by
human activity for many years including activities which would certainly be loud
enough to disturb roosting bats, if present. Thus, the potential for these species to be
present is likely to be low and thus, only completion of pre-construction surveys is
required. The mitigation measure is sufficient in that in the unlikely event that a pre-
construction survey identifies bats on site, a relocation plan consistent with CDFW
standards and policies would be established.
Comment 3.1.23: The DSEIR does not contain any analysis to substantiate the conclusion
that the proposed project would not cause any new or more severe impacts with respect to
cumulative biological impacts than was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR (1992) and the IKEA SEIR (2003), a significant
amount of new information has been submitted regarding Congdon’s tarplant, burrowing owl
and other sensitive species. There was no evidence that Congdon’s tarplant existed on the
site when the IKEA SEIR was prepared. In addition, surveys have documented a dramatic
decline in burrowing owl populations in Alameda County and Contra Costa counties. It is
now known that the Camp Parks property plays an important role in the overall persistence
of burrowing owl populations. Previously accepted mitigations are ineffective in conservation
of burrowing owl. The presence of seasonal wetlands is also new information that was not
documented in prior EIRs.
The commenter’s biologist concludes that the project’s incremental contribution to
cumulative impacts to burrowing owl, Congdon’s tarplant, vernal pool fairy shrimp and
special-status bats would be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts cannot be
accurately assessed until the missing baseline pertaining to the above species on the
project is provided. The DSEIR must be revised to evaluate the project’s cumulative impact
on biological resources taking into account new information that is available since the 1992
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Response: The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more
severe significant cumulative impacts to biological resources than identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR. All project and cumulative impacts (except one)
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 34
City of Dublin August 2014
continue to be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR as
augmented and revised by mitigation measures contained in the DSEIR. The one
cumulative impact that remains significant and unavoidable as identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR is the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive
habitat.
With regard to Congdon’s tarplant, the Project impact will be less than cumulatively
considerable. The impact will be reduced to less than significant through mitigation
requiring 1:1 replacement habitat at a more appropriate site which would be more
beneficial for long-term preservation of the species. The population of Congdon’s
tarplant within the project site appears to have become established or greatly
expanded recently in response to human disturbance. Due to the project site’s
location close to an urban center, and due to the site’s past and current uses as a
development site, the nearly-isolated population of Congdon’s tarplant within the
project site is not ideal for preservation, and mitigation would provide for long-term
preservation of the species.
With regard to the burrowing owl, no owls or owl signs (indicators) were observed
during multiple surveys of the project site. There are no records of burrowing owl
ever using the project site and the project site is located some distance away from
the Camp Parks population of burrowing owls. However, in the event owls are found
during pre-construction surveys, mitigation in conformance with CDFW standards is
required which will reduce any impacts to less than cumulatively considerable (See
Response to Comment 3.1.12).
With regard to wetlands, mitigation will result in no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages through the development and implementation of a wetland mitigation
plan that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands in
accordance with regulatory agency standards. This will reduce any impact to less
than cumulatively considerable. In addition, all wetlands on the site are features
created during development activities on the site in 2008 and are not naturally
occurring. Incidentally created wetlands are relatively common in partially developed
landscapes and rarely support protected plant and wildlife species.
With regard to VPFS, as discussed in Response to Comment 3.1.11, there is no
substantial evidence or reasonable basis to believe that VPFS could be present on
the project site, thus the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact to VPFS.
With regard to special-status bats, the presence of bats in the limited building located
on-site is presumed but not known. If bats are found during required pre-
construction surveys, a relocation plan shall be develop and implemented in
accordance with regulatory agency standards. Therefore, the project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact to bats (See Response to Comment
3.1.15)
Comment 3.1.24: The DSEIR finds that the project would result in significant and
unavoidable traffic impacts at numerous intersections and roadways. Before a finding of
significant and unavoidable impact can be made, the City must implement all feasible
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 35
City of Dublin August 2014
mitigation measures for such an impact. For this document, not all feasible mitigation
measures have been considered. In addition, several of the mitigation measures are vague
and unenforceable as written
Response: The City disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that not all feasible
mitigation measures have been identified and applied to the project. Proposed
mitigation measures included in the DSEIR are consistent with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. For those traffic impacts which are identified as significant and
unavoidable, the City will need to make findings regarding the feasibility of proposed
mitigation measures at the time of Project approval in accordance with CEQA.
Comment 3.1.25: Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 sets forth two separate alternative
methods to reduce traffic impacts. at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection
during the PM peak period. The DSEIR concludes that traffic impacts at this intersection
even with implementation of the supplemental mitigation measures. However, the primary
and alternative supplemental mitigation measures are not mutually exclusive and address
different aspects of the project’s impacts. Because neither supplemental mitigation measure
reduces impacts below a level of significance and because both measures are feasible, the
DSEIR errs in stating these supplemental mitigation measures are alternative measures.
Accordingly, both measures should be required to mitigate Impact TR-2 to the fullest extent
feasible.
In addition, the DSEIR must be revised to evaluate potential measures to address
pedestrian and bike safety concerns over Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-1. At a
minimum, the DSEIR should address the feasibility of pedestrian and bicycle overpasses.
Response: As documented in the DSEIR, implementation of additional vehicle lanes
at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersections as outlined in
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 is not feasible or practical. All properties
abutting this intersection are fully built out and purchase of additional right-of-way to
accommodate additional lanes would encroach into parking lots on three corners and
a City public art installation on the southeast corner of this intersection. This, there is
not sufficient right-of-way to construct improvements identified in Supplemental
Mitigation Measure TR-2. Proposed trip reduction measures outlined in Alternative
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 would likely reduce peak hour trips through
the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road by some number of trips, however, the
actual amount of trip reduction cannot be measured and may not be sufficiently
effective to reduce project contribution of peak hour trips at the major intersection.
The development of a TDM plan is required by Alternative Mitigation Measure SM-
TR-2.
However, because the reductions in vehicle trips from the TDM measures cannot not
be determined with certainty, the DSEIR finds that Impact TR-2 will be significant and
unavoidable.
The concept advanced by the commenter that one or more pedestrian and bicycle
overpasses be constructed at this intersection is also found to be infeasible due to
the extreme length of raised walkways needed to span these very wide arterial
roadways and lack of sufficient right-of-way to provide for entrances and exits for
such overcrossings. At the time of Project approval, the City will need to make
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 36
City of Dublin August 2014
findings regarding the infeasibility of constructing pedestrian and bicycle
overcrossings at this intersection.
Comment 3.1.26: Alternative Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 is also inadequate
because it is vague and unenforceable as written. Subsection “h” that would require BART
tickets be provided at no cost or subsidized rates to all employees does not contain any
minimum amount of subsidy. Subsection (i) contains no minimum benefit requirements. With
lack of details and standards, this means that implementation is impermissibly deferred and
the success is uncertain. The supplemental measure should be revised to set forth feasible
minimum subsidy and benefit requirements. For instance, the City of Santa Monica requires
a minimum transit pass subsidy of 50% or a minimum pre-tax benefit program equal to the
full price of a transit pass. The City should require subsidies or benefits that, at a minimum,
meet City of Santa Monica standards.
Response: As documented in the DSEIR, Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure TR-2 requires the developer to develop a TDM Plan as part of the project
approvals. This TDM Plan will outline the details that are requested by the
commentator. At the minimum the project would implement a BART subsidy program
that would provide BART tickets at no cost or a subsidized rate to all employees.
The exact amount of the subsidy is not set in the mitigation, but “at no cost” would be
a full subsidy. The exact requirements under the Mitigation Measure will be
determined at the time of the City approval of the overall TDM Plan when the
relationship between the BART subsidy and other components of the Plan will be
evaluated. This is not an improper deferral of mitigation. Mitigation Measure TR-2
requires the preparation of a transportation demand management (TDM) plan to
encompass both commercial and residential uses which contains certain types of
specified and detailed types of programs. The fact that the City will approve the
exact requirements of the Plan before the issuance of any building permit is not
improper deferral under CEQA. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the project
require the Developer/Applicant to provide a minimum monthly Clipper card/transit
pass subsidy for each residential unit.
Comment 3.1.27: Page 6 of the DSEIR notes that Impact TR-3, impacts to the Dublin
Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection, would be less-than-significant. Page 79 of the
DSEIR notes that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The finding that Traffic Impact
TR-3 would be less-than-significant after mitigation is not supported by substantial evidence.
In addition, the DSEIR should be revised to evaluate potential mitigation measures to
address pedestrian and bike safety to support the conclusion that changes in turn lanes and
signal phasing would not be feasible. The DSEIR should evaluate the feasibility of
pedestrian overpasses and driveway safety warnings or safer driveway existing designs.
Response: The Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-3
contained on page 6 of the DSEIR has a typographical error which is inconsistent
with the text of the DSEIR with the actual analysis on pages 78-79. Impact TR-3
identifies the short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda
Drive intersection during the PM peak period. As noted on pages 78 and 79 of the
DSEIR, roadway improvements (as outlined in Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-TR-3) required to mitigate this impact to less than significant are infeasible since
the improvements would require the removal or modification of an existing curb
extension on the southeast corner of this intersection and relocation of an existing
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 37
City of Dublin August 2014
bike lane to accommodate an additional vehicle lane. Construction of the new travel
lane would increase the crossing distance for pedestrians wishing to cross this street
and impact bicycle use of Dublin Boulevard. Since the proposed traffic improvements
are infeasible, the DSEIR requires the development of a TDM program as required
under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2 to reduce this impact.
However, since the reductions in vehicle trips from the TDM measures are difficult to
determine with certainty, the DSEIR finds that Impact TR-3 will be significant and
unavoidable.
The commenter is also directed to the Clarifications and Modifications section to this
Final SEIR regarding correction of the document.
Comment 3.1.28: The supplemental mitigation for Impact TR-5 is speculative and
unenforceable and does not support the conclusion that Impact TR-5 will be mitigated to a
less-than significant level. The Supplemental Mitigation measure requires the Green project
developer to assist in funding the construction of a grade separated crossing of Scarlett
Drive at Dublin Boulevard as identified in the Dublin Crossings EIR. The commenter notes
that the proposed grade separated structure has not received environmental clearances nor
has engineering right-of-way studies been completed to assure success of this
supplemental mitigation measure. When success of a mitigation measure cannot be
guaranteed, an agency cannot reasonably determine that significant effects will not occur.
Therefore, the City lacks sufficient evidence to support the DSEIR conclusion.
Response: The commenter is incorrect in the assertion that Supplemental Mitigation
Measure TR-5 lacks certainty and will not mitigate the Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett
Drive intersection to a less-than-significant level in the long-term, cumulative
condition. Proposed construction of the grade separation structure is located on City
right-of-way and funding will be provided by development impact fees and other
sources. Environmental review of the project has not yet been completed, but will be
finalized by the City of Dublin prior to when it will be needed for pedestrian and
bicycle use under the long-term cumulative condition. There is no need to have final
designs and environmental review completed at this early stage of the project. With
the construction of the grade separation structure as planned, the impact will be less
than significant.
However, in the event the grade separation is not constructed by 2035, the DSEIR
also includes an alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the east leg of
the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. The removal of the crosswalk
will also result in a less than significant impact. The Project is required to make a fair
share contribution to the construction of this improvement.
Comment 3.1.29: The DSEIR concludes that no feasible mitigation is available for Impacts
TR-10, TR-11, TR-12, TR-13, TR-14, TR-15, TR-16 and TR-17. This conclusion is in conflict
with the identification of the preparation of a TDM Plan as a feasible mitigation measure.
Such a plan that promotes ridesharing, van pools, public transportation use, bicycle use can
reduce the projects generation of traffic and the project’s contribution to these traffic
impacts. A transportation management plan must be more specific than set forth in the
Alternative Supplemental Mitigation Measure and include an enforceable minimum subsidy
and enforcement mechanism to identify and assess compliance and effectiveness. In
addition, the DSEIR should be revised to evaluate potential measures to address pedestrian
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 38
City of Dublin August 2014
and bicycle concerns that led the DSEIR to determine that changes in turn lanes and signal
phasing changes will not be feasible. The DSEIR should evaluate the potential for
pedestrian overpasses or other additional pedestrian safety designs that could make
rejected traffic mitigation measures feasible.
Response: The DSEIR concludes that a TDM Plan, as outlined in Alternative
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2, is a feasible mitigation and will reduce
the impacts of all the supplemental impacts referenced by the commenter. Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2 sets forth with specificity that types of measures that will be part
of the program and will be required as a condition of approval for the Project.
However, since the exact amount of the trip reductions from the TDM program are
difficult to determine with certainty at this time, the DSEIR concludes that the traffic
impacts TR-10, TR-11, TR-12, TR-13, TR-14, TR-15, TR-16 and TR-17 will be
significant and unavoidable.
The DSEIR did not evaluate the potential to construct above- or below-grade
crossings at other impacted intersections due to the fact that none of these other
intersections include a regional trail that is considered a significant pedestrian/bicycle
route along a well-travelled commute and recreational corridor.
Comment 3.1.30: The DSEIR fails to describe the project in sufficient detail to meaningful
evaluate project impacts to bicycle and improperly defers mitigation for potential impacts to
bicyclists. The City’s Bikeway Master Plan identifies bike lanes along Arnold Road and other
roads immediately adjacent to the site. The DSEIR states that no detailed plans have been
submitted to the City to determine if adequate sight distance will be provided to allow for a
clear view of bicyclists for vehicles entering or exiting the project site. Nor is sufficient data
available to review whether sufficient bicycle parking will be provided. Accordingly, the
DSEIR assumes project imparts to these topics to be significant. The failure of a sufficient
project description is a violation of CEQA and does not allow all impacts to be fully
evaluated or appropriate mitigation measures to be developed. In addition, mitigation
provided in the DSEIR is improperly deferred and lacks performance standards. The
document fails to disclose what City guidelines, policies and standard are applicable and
provides no evidence that compliance with standards will reduce future impacts to a less-
than-significant level. The DSEIR also fails to describe the project in sufficient detail to allow
meaningful evaluation of impacts to pedestrians. Similar to lack of detail regarding bicycle
impacts, lack of detail does not allow a full analysis of pedestrian impacts, improperly defers
mitigation and lacks performance standards.
Response: Staff has analyzed architectural, site, and civil plans that comprise the
Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map application for the
proposed project. Through Staff’s review of these application materials, Staff has
ensured that bicycle and pedestrian access is enhanced both inside the project and
on the public streets in the project vicinity. With the more detailed plans available,
Staff is able to make the determination that adequate sight distance is being
provided to allow for a clear view of bicyclists for vehicles entering or exiting the
project site. Staff has also reviewed the plans to determine that sufficient bicycle
parking is being provided. The pedestrian and bicycle circulation system that has
been reviewed will be further refined at the time Staff reviews the off-site
improvement plans, and special attention will be paid to maintain safety and access
for alternate modes of transportation at all intersections. Based on the plans
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 39
City of Dublin August 2014
submitted by Applicant at this time, the Project complies with City Plans relating to
pedestrians and bicycles (including Bikeway Master Plan, Complete Streets, and all
other applicable City plans on this issue). However, Supplemental Mitigation
Measures SM-TR-18 and -19 require final review for compliance based on final plans
at the time of sitework permits.
Regarding the portion of the comment regarding applicable “guidelines, policies and
standards” Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-TR-18 and -19 are hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final
Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent
with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans, which
have been determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines, policies and
standards, including but not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan Community
Design & Sustainability Element, Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and
the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and approval by the City.”
Pedestrian and bicycle requirements contained in the above City requirements are
based on city-wide experience in the development of the Eastern Dublin Planning
area and have proven successful in ensuring that pedestrian and bicycle facilities will
be constructed to reduce pedestrian and pedestrian impacts to a less-than-significant
level. The requirement in a mitigation measure to comply with specific standards is
not improper deferral under CEQA.
Comment 3.1.31: The DSEIR finds that significant and unavoidable greenhouse gasses
would be emitted by the project. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be identified and
imposed before a finding of significant and unavoidable impacts can be made. For this
project, the requirement that the project exceed 2008 Title 24 energy efficiently
requirements by 20% is inadequate because the 2013 Title 24 energy efficiency
requirements now in effect exceed the 2008 Title 24 standards by approximately 25%. The
commenter cites that Title 24 CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 call for exceeding 2013 Title 24
energy standard by 15 to 30%. Because these are currently regulatory requirements, they
are presumed feasible. Based on this information, the DSEIR must be revised to require the
project to exceed the 2013 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 30% or as much as
determined feasible by the City based on evidence submitted in the record.
Response: The Project will be required to comply with the California State Energy
Efficiency (Title 24) standards in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. At
the time of publication of this Final SEIR, the 2013 Title 24 standards are currently in
effect. For details on these requirements, please refer to the State’s website:
www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/index.htm.
In addition to required compliance with the Title 24 standards in effect at the time of
permit issuance, the Project will also be required to be in compliance with the 2013
California Green Building Standards Code (‘CalGreen’), which was adopted by the
City. Dublin’s Chief Building Official enforces the mandatory measures of CalGreen,
but did not adopt Tiers 1 or 2. Dublin also enforces Chapter 7.94 of the Municipal
Code, which is the City’s Green Building Ordinance. The goal of the ordinance is to
increase energy efficiency and it applies to the planning, design, operation,
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 40
City of Dublin August 2014
construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure in
the City, including residential developments over 20 units.
The Project will also be required to comply with all other applicable regulatory
requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as noted in the Draft SEIR.
Please refer to the Draft SEIR, beginning on page 186, for a summary of the
greenhouse gas reduction strategies and requirements that will be imposed on the
Project by the City’s Climate Action Plan.
In addition to the above requirements, the Applicant/Developer has identified
additional measures to reduce the construction-related greenhouse gas emissions of
the Project during it multi-year construction timeframe. The list of measures,
developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and
included as Attachment 6 to this Final SEIR, are considered best management
practices providing options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from construction
projects. By including this list of measures in the Final SEIR, the Applicant is
required to implement them and SM-AQ-4 is modified to include a reference to the
measures.
The City’s greenhouse gas emissions consultant reviewed the request of the
commenter to determine if supplemental mitigation for the project were to have
required a 30% in excess of 2013 Title 24 energy standards will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to a less-than-significant level. The City’s consultant determined such
an increase would not change the significant and unavoidable impact conclusion in
the DSEIR , due to the fact that mitigated mobile emissions alone (not including
energy usage) are enough to result in a significant and unavoidable impact
(Illingworth & Rodkin, July 2014).
Since the DSEIR finds that the Project’s impacts due to GHG emissions is significant
and unavoidable, at the time of Project approval, the City Council will need to make
findings on the feasibility of any proposed additional mitigation measures to reduce
GHG emissions.
Comment 3.1.32: CEQA requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new
information is added to an EIR following public review but before certification. The
commenter notes that the project will have numerous impacts that are different and more
severe than described in the EIR, including groundwater impacts, soil impacts, biological
resource impacts and traffic impacts. The DSEIR lacks adequate mitigation for the
potentially significant impacts previously mentioned and a revised and recirculated EIR is
required.
Response: The commenter is incorrect in the assertion that new or more severe
impacts would occur with the projects than have been analyzed in the DESIR. See
the previous responses noting that no new or more severe significant impacts would
occur with respect to groundwater resource, hazards and contamination, biological
resources and traffic. The City therefore believes that the standards for recirculation
are not met. In addition, the limited clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR
contained in the Final SEIR do not meet the standards for recirculation. The
changes in the Final SEIR clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to an
adequate DSEIR in compliance with CEQA standards.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 41
City of Dublin August 2014
Comment 3.1.33: commenter thanks the City of Dublin for an opportunity to provide
comments. The City is urged to ensure that project impacts are fully disclosed, evaluated
and mitigated before the project is allowed to proceed.
Response: This comment is noted. The City believes that the DSEIR, with the minor
modifications and clarifications in the Final SEIR, is legally adequate, fully discloses
all project supplemental impacts, evaluates those impacts and, to the extent feasible,
provides legally adequate supplemental mitigation measures, all in compliance with
CEQA standards.
Attachment 1:
Annotated Comment Letters
Attachment 2:
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures)
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 1
Table 1.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
TR-1 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road (#8) intersection would
degrade from LOS D to LOS E with
the addition of project trips during
the AM peak hour under Existing
conditions.
SM-TR-1. The following measures shall be required to improve the level of
service to within acceptable standard:
a) Add a 75-foot long southbound right turn lane with a 100-foot long
taper area;
b) Convert the southbound shared through-right lane to through lane;
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Less-than-Significant
TR-2 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the
proposed project during the PM
peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions and
implementation of the proposed
project would add 50 or more trips to
the intersection.
SM-TR-2. The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential
projects with 50 or more employees to participate in the Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) program. As an alternative mitigation
measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of
the project. The project developer shall work with the City to develop the
key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be approved by the City prior to
the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should include, but
not be limited to, the following elements:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program
developed for the project including program development, information
distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all
employees and residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride
Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE),
BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to
all employees and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with “The
Village” property to the north and/or other developments in the East
Dublin area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute
alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative
information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car
spaces or a number approved by the City beyond the City’s bicycle rack
requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a “Biz Prime” member and pay for
membership of a minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 2
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
tickets at no cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under
Section 132(F) of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees
up to $245 per month for qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs. Or,
an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling costs. Full information
is available at: http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of
off-street parking requirements.
The following measures would be required to improve the level of service
to within acceptable standard:
a) Convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two
left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the
eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard;
b) Provide a corresponding 300-foot long receiving lane on the east leg
with a 360-foot long merging taper area;
c) Provide an overlap signal phasing for the westbound right-turn
movement and prohibit conflicting southbound U-turn movement; and
d) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Alternative Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2. Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-3 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS
E with the addition of project trips
during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-3. Implement SM-TR-2. The following measures would be
required to improve the level of service to within an acceptable standard:
a) Convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two
left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the
eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard;
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg with a 360-
foot long taper area; and
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Less-than-Significant
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-4 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Tassajara Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the
proposed project during the PM
peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions and
implementation of the proposed
project would add 50 or more trips to
the intersection.
SM-TR-4. The following measures would be required to improve the level
of service to within acceptable standard:
a) Add an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three
through lanes and two right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on
Dublin Boulevard; and
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg that extends
from Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street.
Less-than-Significant
TR-5 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection would
operate at LOS E without the
SM-TR-5. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive, there
is a significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP)-DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 3
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
proposed project during the AM peak
hour under Long-Term Cumulative
conditions and the proposed project
would further degrade the operations
to LOS F and add 50 or more trips to
the intersection.
recommended measure to mitigate the impacts at the intersection of
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to the high rate of
pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade separated
crossing. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-
grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more
green time to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Although
the Dublin Crossings project has not been environmentally cleared, nor has
engineering or right of way analysis been completed with regards to the
feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project
to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The
City also plans to include a grade separated crossing at this location in its
update to the TIF program to secure project funding. Because the
separated bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared, and to ensure
that the impacts are adequately mitigated, the Applicant/Developer is
required to provide a fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of
removing the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
TR-6 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road (#8) intersection would
degrade from LOS D to LOS E with
the addition of project trips during the
AM peak hour under Long-Term
Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-6. The following measures would be required to improve the level
of service to within acceptable standard:
a) Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide a protected/ permitted
overlap phase for the southbound right-turn movement and prohibit
conflicting eastbound U-turn movement; and
b) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Less-than-Significant
TR-7 Traffic. The southbound left-turn
queue at the Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road intersection would
exceed turn pocket capacity without
the proposed project during the PM
peak hour and the proposed project
would lengthen the queue by 25 feet
or more under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-7. Optimization of the traffic signal phase time would reduce the
95th percentile queue length for the southbound left turn to 371 feet during
the PM peak hour. While the queue length would still exceed the turn
pocket storage, the project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25
feet.
Less-than-Significant
TR-8 Traffic. The westbound left-turn
queue at the Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection
would exceed turn pocket capacity
without the proposed project during
the AM peak hour and
implementation of the proposed
project would lengthen the queue by
SM-TR-8. The traffic signal at this intersection shall be modified to provide
additional green time for the westbound left-turn movement by reducing the
green time for the eastbound through movement. This will reduce the
queue length to 420 feet in the AM peak hour and 270 feet in the PM peak
hour. While the queue lengths would still exceed turn pocket capacity, the
project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25 feet in the AM peak
hour and would cause the queue to extend beyond the turn pocket by less
than 25 feet in the PM peak hour.
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 4
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
25 feet or more under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions. Further,
during the PM peak, the project
would cause the queue to extend
beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet
when it would be contained under No
Project scenario.
TR-9 Traffic. The southbound left-turn
queue at the Scarlett Drive and
Dougherty Road intersection would
exceed turn pocket capacity without
the proposed project during the PM
peak hour and implementation of the
proposed project would lengthen the
queue by 25 feet or more under
Long-Term Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-9. The traffic signal phasing at this intersection shall be modified to
provide additional green time for the southbound left-turn movement. This
will reduce the queue length by 12 feet to 845 feet and to within acceptable
threshold. Also, because the impact is caused by cumulative land use
growth in the region, the project developer shall make a fair share
contribution toward this improvement. The fair share contribution shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Less-than-Significant
TR-10 Traffic. The project would cause the
Dublin Boulevard segment between
Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to
degrade from LOS D to LOS E during
the AM peak hour under Existing
conditions. The project would only
add 30 trips to this segment.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-11 Traffic. The project would cause the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment
of Dublin Boulevard to Central
Parkway to degrade from LOS D to
LOS E. Project traffic would also
cause the volume to capacity ratio of
the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment between I-580 westbound
ramp to Hacienda Crossings to
increase by 0.071.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-12 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment
between DeMarcus Boulevard and
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 5
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
Iron Horse Parkway to increase by
0.03 where it would operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour under Short-
Term Cumulative No Project
scenario.
TR-13 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard
segment between Scarlett Drive and
Dougherty Road to increase by 0.027
where it would operate at LOS E in
the AM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-14 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by
0.045 where it would operate at LOS
E in the AM peak hour and by 0.071
where it would operate at LOS F in
the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-15 Traffic. The project would cause the
northbound Tassajara Road segment
between Dublin Boulevard and
Central Parkway to degrade from
LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak
hour under Short-Term Cumulative
conditions. While the project would
only add 4 trips to this segment, this
impact is considered to be significant.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-16 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratios along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 6
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
segments between Iron Horse
Parkway and Camp Parks where it
would operate at LOS E and between
Camp Parks and Scarlett Drive where
it would operate at LOS F in the AM
peak hour under Long-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario to
increase by 0.023.
TR-17 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by
0.02 during the PM peak hour where
it would operate at LOS F under
Long-Term Cumulative No Project
scenario.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-18 Traffic. The project could conflict with
adopted bicycle plans, guidelines,
policies or standards.
SM-TR-18. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall
submit design plans that are consistent with applicable City guidelines,
polices and standards for review and approval by the City. Prior to the
issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final
Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are
consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map plans, which have been determined to be consistent with applicable
City guidelines, policies and standards, including but not limited to the City
of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master
Plan, for review and approval by the City.
Less-than-Significant
TR-19 Traffic. The project could conflict with
adopted policies, plans or program
supporting pedestrians.
SM-TR-19. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall
submit design plans that are consistent with applicable City guidelines,
polices and standards for review and approval by the City. Prior to the
issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final
Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are
consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map plans, which have been determined to be consistent with applicable
City guidelines, policies and standards, including but not limited to the City
of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 7
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
Plan, for review and approval by the City.
TR-20 Traffic. The project could conflict with
adopted policies, plans or program
supporting pedestrians, including the
City’s Complete Streets policies.
SM-TR-20. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall
submit design plans that are consistent with the City’s Complete Street
Policy and design standards for review and approval by the City.
Less-than-Significant
TR-21 Traffic. The project could include
design features that would not be
consistent with the City’s engineering
design standards or standards
published by the ITE or Caltrans.
SM-TR-21. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the project
developer shall submit design plans that are consistent with the City’s
Complete Street Policy for review and approval by the City. All designs
shall conform to City standards.
Less-than-Significant
TR-22 Traffic. Project construction activities
such as the import of the fill material
and delivery of materials could result
in impacts to vehicle, bicycle and
pedestrian access in and around the
project area.
SM-TR-22. Before issuance of grading permits for the project, the project
developer shall prepare a detailed Traffic Management Plan that will be
subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin, LAVTA, and local
emergency service providers, including the City of Dublin Fire Prevention
Bureau and the City of Dublin Police Services Department. The plan shall
ensure maintenance of acceptable operating conditions on local roadways
and transit routes. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
a) The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures
b) Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
c) Limitations on the size and type of trucks; provision of a staging area
with a limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting
d) Provision of a truck circulation pattern
e) Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle movements (e.g., steel plates, minimum
distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up and drop off
areas)
f) Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles
g) Efficient and convenient transit routes
h) Manual traffic control when necessary
i) Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street
closures
j) Provisions for pedestrian safety and access.
Less-than-Significant
Park-1 Community Services & Facilities.
Build-out of the proposed project
would require the dedication of 5
acres of local parkland on the project
site. The proposed project provides
no public park space.
SM-Park-1. Prior to approval of the first Final Subdivision Map for the
project, the project developer(s) shall satisfy the requirement to provide
parkland through the payment of in-lieu fees to the City of Dublin prior to
issuance of building permits. As part of the first final subdivision map for
the project, the project developer(s) shall dedicate a minimum 2-acre
Neighborhood Square to the City of Dublin. The size, configuration and
location of the Neighborhood Square shall be approved by the Dublin parks
and Community Services Department. Project developer(s) shall satisfy
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 8
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
remaining local park requirements by paying fees to the City of Dublin prior
to issuance of building permits.
BIO-1 Biological Resources. The
proposed project would result in the
fill of potentially jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. and/or waters of the State.
SM-BIO-1. The applicant shall undertake the following prior to issuance of
a grading plan for the site:
a) A wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protocols.
b) If jurisdictional wetlands are found on the site and if avoidance of these
jurisdictional waters on the site is not feasible, suitable compensatory
mitigation shall be provided based on the concept of no net loss of
wetland habitat values or acreages. In such an eventuality, a wetland
mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes
creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to
project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in
perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar
mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment
of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. If wetlands
are determined to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and
approval of the Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). If the potential seasonal wetlands are non-jurisdictional
under Section 404, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and
approval of the RWQCB.
Less-than-Significant
BIO-2 Biological Resources. Approval and
construction of the proposed project
would impact Congdon’s tarplant and
other special-status plant species on
the site.
SM-BIO-2. Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted
on the site consistent with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s
2009 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status
Populations and natural Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted
throughout the blooming period throughout the blooming period of those
special-status for which suitable habitat is present. Two or three separate
surveys may be required to cover the blooming period of plants listed in
Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis (Appendix 8.7 of the
DSEIR) Table 4.4-1. If populations/stands of a special-status species are
identified during the surveys and impacts cannot be avoided,
compensatory mitigation shall be provided, such as the acquisition of off -
site mitigation areas presently supporting the species in question, purchase
of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the
affected species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or
conservation organization (e.g.. a local land trust) for the preservation and
management of existing populations. The location of mitigation sites shall
be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife. In the case
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 9
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
where special-status plants are neither federal- or state-listed, the lead
agency shall approve the mitigation approach using the guidance provided
by the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy in consultation with
the City’s consulting biologist. Off-site compensatory shall be acquired at a
minimum acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired:impacted). For off -site mitigation
options, measures shall be implemented (including contingency measures)
providing for the long-term protection of these species.
BIO-3 Biological Resources. The
proposed project could impact the
habitat for nesting or wintering
burrowing owl by disturbing the
existing ground surface.
SM-BIO-3. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls
prior to grading or construction activities. These surveys should conform to
the survey protocol established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (CDFW 2012b). The Conservation Strategy depicts the project
site as being located in Conservation Zone 2, which supports 11 percent of
the Conservation Strategy’s study area’s unprotected potential habitat for
burrowing owl). Burrowing owls could nest or winter in the site’s
approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed non-native grassland habitat and
within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to the site. The following
measures are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife standards.
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a
qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing
owls. If no owls are found during this first survey, a final survey will be
conducted within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that
burrowing owls are still absent. If ground disturbing activities are
delayed or suspended for more than 14 days after the initial take
avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed (including the final
survey within 48 hours of disturbance). All surveys shall be conducted
in accordance with California Department of Fish & Wildlife guidelines.
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation
shall be implemented in accordance with applicable California
Department of Fish & Wildlife standards. More specifically, if the
surveys identify breeding or wintering burrowing owls on or adjacent
to the site, occupied burrows cannot be disturbed and shall be
provided with protective buffers. Where avoidance is not feasible
during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion plan (i.e., a
plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the
duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the
owls, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background
activities) shall be implemented to encourage owls to move away from
the work area prior to construction and to minimize the potential to
affect the reproductive success of the owls. The exclusion plan shall
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 10
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
be subject to California Fish & Wildlife approval and monitoring
requirements. Compensatory mitigation could also be required by
California Fish & Wildlife as part of the approval of an exclusion plan.
Mitigation may include the permanent protection of habitat at a nearby
off-site location acceptable to the California Department of Fish &
Wildlife.
BIO-4 Biological Resources. Construction
of the proposed project could impact
breeding birds on the site.
SM-BIO-4. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (impacts to
breeding birds). Vegetation removal and/or initial ground disturbance on
the site shall occur during the non-breeding season from September 1 to
January 31. If instead these actions will occur from February 1 to August
31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted no
more than 14 days prior to construction. Any common bird active nests
found shall be protected by a minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer. The buffer
size may vary depending on bird species, the location of the nest, and
other factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a special-status
species is located on the site, a larger buffer would be required, such as a
100-foot buffer for minor disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major
disturbances. In the case of special-status species, the size of buffers and
other measures would be implemented based on any applicable CDFW
guidance and standards.
Less-than-Significant
BIO-5 Biological Resources. Construction
of the proposed project could impact
special-status bats that could inhabit
the site, specifically the removal of
the existing building.
SM-BIO-5. The marketing building shall be removed from the premises
during September or October. Pre-construction surveys of the marketing
building for bats shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If
bats are found, a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation
plan consistent with US Fish & Wildlife, California Department of Fish &
Wildlife and EACCS standards and policies.
Less-than-Significant
NOISE-
1
Noise. Residential land uses
proposed by the project could be
exposed to exterior noise levels
exceeding 60 dBA CNEL and interior
noise levels exceeding 45 dBA
CNEL.
SM-NOISE-1. Reduce exterior and interior noise levels in noise sensitive
areas of the project to meet City standards. To meet City noise standards,
the following mitigation shall be used:
Locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from Interstate 580.
Ensure that all residents have access to outdoor use areas that
achieve exterior noise criteria (60 dBA CNEL for residential uses).
A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by
the local building official, shall be provided for units throughout the site,
so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to
control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards.
For the first row of buildings facing Interstate 580, the buildings shall be
designed to have sealed windows and no balconies on elevations
facing the freeway.
For residential uses, noise insulation features shall be designed to
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 11
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Sound rated
windows and doors shall be provided to maintain interior noise levels at
acceptable levels. Additional treatments may include, but are not
limited to, sound rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, insulation,
acoustical vents, etc. Large windows and doors should be oriented
away from the I-580 where possible. Bedrooms should be located
away from I-580.
The final specifications for noise insulation treatments shall be
reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant during final design of the
project to ensure that exterior and interior noise levels on site achieve
the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for residential uses and
hourly average noise levels to 45 dBA Leq for commercial uses.
Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary
interior and exterior noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the
City along with the building plans and shall approved by the City prior
to issuance of a building permit.
The final design and location of project mechanical equipment shall be
reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant to confirm that
operational noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL at exterior
project residential uses and would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL inside
these residences. If needed, the final design and location of
mechanical equipment shall be modified to conform with noise
parameters set forth in this analysis.
A truck delivery plan shall be submitted to the City for the commercial
portion of the project site, which would include the proposed hours of
allowable deliveries and the locations and routes of the delivery trucks
on the project site. A qualified acoustical consultant shall review the
delivery plan to ensure that interior and exterior noise levels on site
achieve acceptable levels. The truck delivery plan and acoustical
consultant report shall be subject to approval by the City prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial building.
Air
Quality
Air Quality. Dust Control Measures. SM-AQ -1. The project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control
measures, which shall replace those included in EDSP EIR Mitigation
Measure 3.11/1.0:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site
shall be covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 12
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 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.
g) 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.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air
District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
AQ-1 Air Quality. The project would result
in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants for
which the project region is non-
attainment under applicable Federal
or State ambient air quality standards
due to emissions of NOX.
SM-AQ -2. The project applicant shall reduce future residential and
employee trips through a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program
approved by the City and including, but not limited to, the following
measures:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program
developed for the project including program development, information
distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all
employees and residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride
Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE),
BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all
employees and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with “The Village”
property to the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin
area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute
alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute
alternative information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 13
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
spaces or a number approved by the City beyond the City’s bicycle
rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a “Biz Prime” member and pay for membership
of a minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets
at no cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under
Section 132(F) of federal tax code, an employer can offer its
employees up to $245 per month for qualified transit, vanpool or
parking costs. Or, an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling
costs. Full information is available at:
http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-
street parking requirements.
k) Provide shading in the parking lot, to the maximum extent possible, to
reduce evaporative ROG emissions.
AQ-2 Air Quality. The project would result
in a violation of regional air quality
standard and would contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
See Implement SM-AQ-2 Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-3 Air Quality. The project would
conflict with the regional Clean Air
Plan.
See Implement SM-AQ-2 Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-4 Air Quality. The project would
expose sensitive receptors to excess
cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations
that are above health-based
thresholds.
SM-AQ -3. The project shall include the following measures to minimize
long-term toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure for new residences:
a. Ensure that no residential buildings would have a full year of
occupancy prior to 1/1/2017.
b. Design buildings and site to limit exposure from sources of TAC and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions. The site layout shall locate
windows and air intakes as far as possible from I-580 traffic lanes. Any
modifications to the site design shall incorporate buffers between
residences and the freeway.
c. To the greatest degree possible, plant vegetation along the project site
boundary with I-580 that includes trees and shrubs that provide a
dense vegetative barrier.
d. Install air filtration in residential buildings at roof top level that have
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 14
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
predicted cancer risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5
concentrations above 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3) as
shown in Exhibit 4.7-4. The type of air filtration device shall be as set
forth in subsection e below.. To ensure adequate health protection to
sensitive receptors, a ventilation system shall meet the following
minimal design standards (Department of Public Health, City and
County of San Francisco, 2008):
At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air;
At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and
At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration.
e. The type of MERV- rated filtration required to be installed as part of the
ventilation system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
1) MERV13 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially
or completed located in an area where the cancer risk is 10 per
one million or greater but less than or equal to 22 per one million
as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
2) MERV16 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially
or completed located in an area where the cancer risk is greater
than 22 per one million and less than 50 per one million as shown
in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
3) MERV16 filtration and sealed, inoperable windows and no
balconies on building elevations facing I-580 freeway (MERV 16
Plus) shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is a greater
than or equal to 50 per one million and less than 62.5 per one
million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
4) In areas where the cancer risk is 62.5 per one million or greater,
residential units shall not be built unless the developer includes
specific mitigation measures that are approved by a qualified air
quality consultant and the City that results in a reduction of the
cancer risk to below 10 per one million.
f. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan
for the buildings’ heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air
filtration system shall be required. Recognizing that emissions from air
pollution sources are decreasing, the maintenance period shall last as
long as significant excess cancer risk or annual PM2.5 exposures are
predicted. Subsequent studies may be conducted by an air quality
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 15
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
expert approved by the City to identify the ongoing need for the filtered
ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
g. Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents (1)
require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings
for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants
are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include
provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the
building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and
replacements of the filters, as needed.
h. Consider phasing developments located closest to I-580 to avoid
significant excess cancer risks and required installation of filtered
ventilation systems (described above). Note that new United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) engines standards
combined with California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules and
regulations will reduce on-road emissions of diesel particulate matter
(DPM) and PM2.5 substantially, especially after 2014.
i. Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant
consultant verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce
toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure as set forth in this mitigation
measure.
AQ-5 Air Quality. The project would
generate greenhouse gas emissions,
both directly and indirectly, that would
have a significant impact on the
environment and would conflict with
an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
SM-AQ -4. The final design of the project shall include all requirements of
the City Climate Action Plan, including policies A.1.4 (Bicycle Parking
Requirements), A.1.5 (Streetscape Master Plan), A.1.8 (General Plan
Community Design and Sustainability Element), A.1.9 (Work with LAVTA to
Improve Transit), A.2.1 (Green Building Ordinance), A.2.5 (LED Streetlight
Specifications), A.3.1 (Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance),
A.3.6 (Commercial Recycling). In addition, the project proponent is
encouraged to participate in subsidy programs such as Climate Action Plan
polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee) and A.3.5
(Commercial Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy programs
such as policies A.3.7 (Multi-Family Recycling), A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling),
and A.3.9 (Curbside Organics Collection). Implementation of these
mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions, but not below the
significance thresholds. The project, as a whole, shall adopt a water use
reduction goal of at least 20 percent. A water use reduction plan shall be
developed by the project applicant that may include measures such as the
installation of low-flow water fixtures in showers and sinks, low-flush toilets,
and the use of water efficient landscaping. The project applicant shall
implement a solid waste recycling program through recycling and
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 16
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
composting strategies, which results in a project-wide solid waste diversion
rate of at least 20 percent. Finally, the project shall exceed 2008 Title 24
Building Standards (which CalEEMod is based on) by at least 20 percent in
terms of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement the supplemental
list of greenhouse gas reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to the
Final SEIR.
HAZ-1 Hazards. The site has been
remediated for commercial and other
non-residential land uses. As a part
of the site management terms that
were approved when the remediation
occurred in 2010, the Alameda
County Department of Environmental
Health (ACDEH) required that if any
residential or other similar land use is
proposed at the Property, the ACDEH
must be notified. ACDEH will then re-
evaluate the case upon receipt of
approved development/construction
plans.
SM-HAZ-1. The Applicant/Developer shall notify ACDEH of the proposed
project and the intent to utilize the site for residential uses so ACDEH can
re-evaluate the case. If directed by ACDEH, a Phase II site investigation or
site health risk assessment shall be completed for portions of the site
anticipated for residential development and excavation prior to issuance of
a grading and/or site improvement permit. The site investigation shall be
coordinated with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
The investigation plan shall include a description of the work to be
performed, the laboratory analytical methods to be uses and requirements
for quality control. If additional remediation is necessary, a remediation
plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACDEH. Grading or
excavation of any identified contaminated residential area on the site shall
not occur until ACDEH issues a closure letter authorizing residential uses
on the site. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with
documentation that the above actions have taken place. To protect the
health and safety of construction workers, Health and Safety Plan that
meets the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements shall be prepared and implemented if additional remediation
is required.
Less-than-Significant
HAZ-2 Hazards. If required, construction
dewatering activities could release
identified accumulations of residual
hydrocarbons, solvents, and other
contaminants into the environment,
possibly exposing construction
workers, and surrounding residents
and visitors during construction.
SM-HAZ-2. If construction dewatering is necessary, a construction
dewatering plan shall be prepared and submitted with a dewatering permit
application. Reuse of groundwater as an on-site dust palliative or for soil
compaction is acceptable if requisite testing and comparison to CAL-EPA
screening thresholds indicate that the groundwater is suitable for reuse. If
reuse is not possible, contaminated water shall be safely removed to an
approved site. Groundwater removed during construction dewatering shall
be treated to the extent required by the permit agency prior to discharge
and the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Dublin San Ramon Services District, or
other agency with jurisdiction, if the water is to be discharged into a storm
or sanitary sewer system.
Less-than-Significant
HAZ-3 Hazards. Demolition activities could
release significant quantities of lead
based paint and asbestos containing
SM-HAZ-3. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing on-site
building, testing shall be performed by a qualified and licensed
environmental professional to determine the present of significant
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 17
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
material and other contaminants into
the environment, possibly exposing
construction workers, and
surrounding residents and visitors
during construction.
quantities of lead based paint and asbestos containing material. If
detected, such material shall be removed by a qualified contractor and
disposed of in an approved disposal facility. Necessary permits shall be
obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to remediation.
Attachment 3:
Breeding Bird Survey Report, dated April 2014
April 22, 2014
David Clock
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company LLC
c/o Quattro Realty Group
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Breeding Bird Survey at The Green, Dublin, California
Dear Mr. Clock:
The purpose of this letter is to report the findings of a take avoidance survey for burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia) and breeding birds within ”The Green” site (Project Area) in Dublin,
Alameda County, California. This survey was performed as a precautionary measure prior to
vegetation maintenance activities such as mowing and/or disking. The survey was performed
due to the presence of potential burrowing owl habitat onsite, including burrows and debris
piles, and the presence of other bird nesting habitat including tall grasses, shrubs, or bare rocky
ground.
Project Area Description
The Project Area is approximately 27.5 acres and bordered by city streets and highways on all
sides, Martinelli Way to the north, Hacienda Drive to the east, Arnold Drive to the west, and
Interstate 580 to the south. The Project Area is a mostly-undeveloped land parcel characterized
by disturbed soil, grasses, and weeds. A single small building is located near the northern edge
of the property, and this is the only building on the property. Past grading activity moved soil
from some portions of the site to piles in other areas, resulting in some areas of relatively flat
ground and other areas with mounds, depressions, or low man-made plateaus.
Vegetation within the Project Area consists primarily of ruderal, non-native grasses and
herbaceous species dominated by wild oats (Avena spp.), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and
common mustard (Brassica nigra) with scattered coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) in the north-
central area. A small portion of the northern Project Area was recently mowed, and other areas
appear to have occasional mowing and vegetation maintenance.
Methods
A breeding bird survey, including a burrowing owl take avoidance survey, was conducted on
April 22, 2014 by WRA wildlife biologist Patricia Valcarcel. Specifically, the survey covered all
portions of the Project Area and within 250 feet of the Project Area for raptor species. The
survey was conducted in the dawn and morning hours and was deemed adequate to effectively
cover the surveyed area. The Project Area was traversed on foot in accordance with the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation 1. Burrows, pipes, and other burrow surrogates were
inspected for evidence of burrowing owl occupancy (feathers, whitewash, pellets, prey remains).
In addition, the site was investigated for any evidence of avian territorial behavior (e.g., singing,
chasing intruders out of territories, etc.), breeding bird behavior (e.g., adult birds carrying
nesting material or food), or the presence of active nests and/or pre-fledged juvenile birds.
Observations were made with binoculars and the naked eye.
Results
No burrowing owl were observed within the Project Area, nor was any evidence of burrowing
owl observed within the Project Area. One active loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) nest
was observed in a coyote bush along the northern fence of the Project Area, located near the
Martinelli Way gate (Attachment 1). The female was observed incubating the nest and the male
was foraging in the area. Loggerhead shrike are a California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Species of Special Concern. A typical buffer surrounding the nest of a special-status passerine
species such as loggerhead shrike is 100 feet. Attachment 1 shows the nest location with a
buffer of 100 feet. All other bird activity was limited to foraging by species commonly observed
in urban and ruderal areas, and no other nesting activity was observed.
Summary
One active loggerhead shrike nest was observed within the surveyed area along the northern
fence line of the Project Area. It is recommended that no work be performed within 100 feet of
the nest (as shown on Attachment 1) until after August 31, 2014, or until it can be shown that all
fledgling birds have vacated the nest and/or the nest has been abandoned. Per common
breeding bird survey standards, the results of this survey are valid for 14 days from the survey
date. If mowing or disking activities have not been initiated within 14 days (i.e., by May 5,
2014), a follow-up pre-construction survey is recommended to determine if any nesting has
been initiated in the interim.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Patricia Valcarcel
Wildlife Biologist
Attachment: Nest Location and Buffer Area Map
1 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California
Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.
2
f
e
e
t
me
t
e
r
s
10
0
0
400
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
L
o
g
g
e
r
h
e
a
d
s
h
r
i
k
e
n
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
r
e
d
)
an
d
a
10
0
-
f
o
o
t
b
u
f
f
e
r
(
y
e
l
l
o
w
)
w
i
t
h
i
n
"T
h
e
Gr
e
e
n
" P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
.
Attachment 4:
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
letter, dated June 2014
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1131 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 250
Alameda, CA 94502-6577
(510) 567-6700
FAX (510) 337-9335
June 11, 2014
Mr. Mike Parker (Sent via E-mail to: mparker@quattrorealty.com)
Quattro Realty Group
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295
Danville, CA 94526
Stephen Pilch
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Land Co., LLC
4 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Subject: Work Plan Review for SLIC Case No. RO0003131 and GeoTracker Global ID T10000005547,
The Green, 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Parker and Mr. Pilch:
Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) has reviewed the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and
Cleanup (SLIC) case for the above referenced site including the document entitled, “Addendum to
Workplan for Further Investigation,” dated May 28, 2014 (Work Plan Addendum). The Work Plan
Addendum, which was prepared in response to technical comments in ACEH correspondence dated May
7, 2014, is an addendum to a document entitled, ““Workplan for Further Investigation,” dated April 23,
2014 (Work Plan).
The proposed scope of work as modified in the Work Plan Addendum is conditionally approved and may
be implemented provided that the technical comment below is addressed and incorporated during the
proposed investigation. Submittal of a revised Work Plan is not required unless an alternate scope of
work outside that described in the Work Plan Addendum and technical comment below is proposed. We
request that you address the following technical comment, perform the proposed work, and send us the
reports described below.
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
1. Stockpile Soil Analysis. In addition to the proposed laboratory analyses for stockpile soil samples
described in the Work Plan Addendum, we request that the stockpile soil samples also be analyzed
for creosote and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using EPA Method 8270, asbestos using
polarized light microscopy, and PCBs using EPA Method 8082. Please present the results in the
Site Investigation Report requested below for ACEH approval prior to reuse of the stockpiles on
site.
ALAMEDA COUNTY
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
AGENCY
ALEX BRISCOE, Director
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Land Co., LLC
RO0003131
June 11, 2014
Page 2
TECHNICAL REPORT REQUEST
Please upload technical reports to the ACEH ftp site (Attention: Jerry Wickham), and to the State Water
Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker website according to the following schedule and file-naming
convention:
October 10, 2014 – Site Investigation Report
File to be named: SWI_R_yyyy-mm-dd RO3131
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 567-6791 or send me an electronic mail message at
jerry.wickham@acgov.org. Case files can be reviewed online at the following website:
http://www.acgov.org/aceh/index.htm.
Sincerely,
Jerry Wickham, California PG 3766, CEG 1177, and CHG 297
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist
Attachment: Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements/Obligations
Enclosure: ACEH Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
cc: Greg Stahl, Ground Zero Analysis, Inc., 1172 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, CA 95351 (Sent via E-mail
to: gstahl@groundzeroanalysis.com)
Ryan Batty, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, CA (Sent via E-mail
to: rbatty@dtsc.ca.gov)
Jerry Wickham, ACEH (Sent via E-mail to: jerry.wickham@acgov.org)
GeoTracker, eFile
Attachment 1
Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements / Obligations
REPORT REQUESTS
These reports are being requested pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25296.10. 23 CCR
Sections 2652 through 2654, and 2721 through 2728 outline the responsibilities of a responsible party in response
to an unauthorized release from a petroleum UST system, and require your compliance with this request.
ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF REPORTS
ACEH’s Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (LOP and SLIC) require submission of reports in electronic
form. The electronic copy replaces paper copies and is expected to be used for all public information requests,
regulatory review, and compliance/enforcement activities. Instructions for submission of electronic documents to
the Alameda County Environmental Cleanup Oversight Program FTP site are provided on the attached “Electronic
Report Upload Instructions.” Submission of reports to the Alameda County FTP site is an addition to existing
requirements for electronic submittal of information to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
GeoTracker website. In September 2004, the SWRCB adopted regulations that require electronic submittal of
information for all groundwater cleanup programs. For several years, responsible parties for cleanup of leaks from
underground storage tanks (USTs) have been required to submit groundwater analytical data, surveyed locations of
monitoring wells, and other data to the GeoTracker database over the Internet. Beginning July 1, 2005, these
same reporting requirements were added to Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup (SLIC) sites. Beginning July
1, 2005, electronic submittal of a complete copy of all reports for all sites is required in GeoTracker (in PDF format).
Please visit the SWRCB website for more information on these requirements
(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/).
PERJURY STATEMENT
All work plans, technical reports, or technical documents submitted to ACEH must be accompanied by a cover
letter from the responsible party that states, at a minimum, the following: "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached document or report is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge." This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of your company.
Please include a cover letter satisfying these requirements with all future reports and technical documents submitted
for this fuel leak case.
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION & CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The California Business and Professions Code (Sections 6735, 6835, and 7835.1) requires that work plans and
technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments be performed
under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional. For your submittal to be considered a
valid technical report, you are to present site specific data, data interpretations, and recommendations prepared by
an appropriately licensed professional and include the professional registration stamp, signature, and statement of
professional certification. Please ensure all that all technical reports submitted for this fuel leak case meet this
requirement.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND
Please note that delays in investigation, later reports, or enforcement actions may result in your becoming ineligible
to receive grant money from the state’s Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (Senate Bill 2004) to reimburse
you for the cost of cleanup.
AGENCY OVERSIGHT
If it appears as though significant delays are occurring or reports are not submitted as requested, we will consider
referring your case to the Regional Board or other appropriate agency, including the County District Attorney, for
possible enforcement actions. California Health and Safety Code, Section 25299.76 authorizes enforcement
including administrative action or monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each day of violation.
Alameda County Environmental Cleanup
Oversight Programs
(LOP and SLIC)
REVISION DATE: May 15, 2014
ISSUE DATE: July 5, 2005
PREVIOUS REVISIONS: October 31, 2005;
December 16, 2005; March 27, 2009; July 8, 2010,
July 25, 2010
SECTION: Miscellaneous Administrative Topics & Procedures SUBJECT: Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
The Alameda County Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (LOP and SLIC) require submission of all reports in
electronic form to the county’s ftp site. Paper copies of reports will no longer be accepted. The electronic copy replaces the
paper copy and will be used for all public information requests, regulatory review, and compliance/enforcement activities.
REQUIREMENTS
Please do not submit reports as attachments to electronic mail.
Entire report including cover letter must be submitted to the ftp site as a single portable document format (PDF)
with no password protection.
It is preferable that reports be converted to PDF format from their original format, (e.g., Microsoft Word) rather than
scanned.
Signature pages and perjury statements must be included and have either original or electronic signature.
Do not password protect the document. Once indexed and inserted into the correct electronic case file, the
document will be secured in compliance with the County’s current security standards and a password. Documents
with password protection will not be accepted.
Each page in the PDF document should be rotated in the direction that will make it easiest to read on a computer
monitor.
Reports must be named and saved using the following naming convention:
RO#_Report Name_Year-Month-Date (e.g., RO#5555_WorkPlan_2005-06-14)
Submission Instructions
1) Obtain User Name and Password
a) Contact the Alameda County Environmental Health Department to obtain a User Name and Password to upload
files to the ftp site.
i) Send an e-mail to deh.loptoxic@acgov.org
b) In the subject line of your request, be sure to include “ftp PASSWORD REQUEST” and in the body of your
request, include the Contact Information, Site Addresses, and the Case Numbers (RO# available in
Geotracker) you will be posting for.
2) Upload Files to the ftp Site
a) Using Internet Explorer (IE4+), go to ftp://alcoftp1.acgov.org
(i) Note: Netscape, Safari, and Firefox browsers will not open the FTP site as they are NOT being
supported at this time.
b) Click on Page located on the Command bar on upper right side of window, and then scroll down to Open FTP
Site in Windows Explorer.
c) Enter your User Name and Password. (Note: Both are Case Sensitive.)
d) Open “My Computer” on your computer and navigate to the file(s) you wish to upload to the ftp site.
e) With both “My Computer” and the ftp site open in separate windows, drag and drop the file(s) from “My
Computer” to the ftp window.
3) Send E-mail Notifications to the Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs
a) Send email to deh.loptoxic@acgov.org notify us that you have placed a report on our ftp site.
b) Copy your Caseworker on the e-mail. Your Caseworker’s e-mail address is the entire first name then a period
and entire last name @acgov.org. (e.g., firstname.lastname@acgov.org)
c) The subject line of the e-mail must start with the RO# followed by Report Upload. (e.g., Subject: RO1234
Report Upload) If site is a new case without an RO#, use the street address instead.
d) If your document meets the above requirements and you follow the submission instructions, you will receive a
notification by email indicating that your document was successfully uploaded to the ftp site.
Attachment 5:
Ground Zero Report for Alameda County Department
of Environmental Health letter, dated April 2014
G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc 1172 Kansas Avenue , Suite A Modesto, CA 95351 209.522.4119 – PH 209.522.4227 - FAX groundzeroanalysis.com April 23 , 2014 Mr. Jerry Wickham Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Environmental Health Services 1131 Harbor Bay Pa rkway, Suite 250 Alameda, CA 94502 -6577 Subject: Workplan for Further Investigation The Green , 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA SLIC Case No. RO0003131 Dear Mr. Wickham : The following Workplan is submitted by Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. (Ground Zero) on behalf of Quattro Realty Group and Stockbridge BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLC in response to your directive letter dated January 30, 2014. The location of the subject S ite is shown on Figure 1. A site plan is shown o n Figure 2 . BACKGROUND Stockbridge BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLC (“Stockbridge”) is the owner of the 27.45 -acre property in Du blin known as “The Green”. Stockbridge is proposing mixed-use development of the property involving construction of commercial as well as medium d ensity residential structures. The City of Dublin is the lead agency preparing a Supplement Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for an amendment to the City’s General Plan allowing for the proposed development. The SEIR will contain certain mitigation measures that will require the input of the Alameda Environment al Health (“ACEH”) involving potential environmental contamination issues arising from the past use of the property.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 2 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Stockbridge requested that ACEH provide such regulatory oversight as is nece ssary to satisfy the mitigation measures of the SEIR. A meeting was held with ACEH on January 9 , 2014 to discuss the background of the S ite and the measures that would be necessary for ACEH to provide the requested services. On January 9, 2014, ACEH ope ned Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup (SLIC) Case No. RO0003131 for the Site. After reviewing background informa tion on Site investigations, ACEH issued the letter dated January 30, 2014 requesting a workplan to address specific technical question s. A copy of the ACEH letter is included in Appendix A. Property Information The subject Site is located at 5411 Martinelli Way in Dublin, California. Martinelli Way borders the Site to the north, Hacienda Drive borders the Site to the east, Interstate-580 borders the Site to the south and Arnold Road borders the Site to the west. The Site has an area of approximately 27.45 acres and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 986-033-004, 986-033-005-2 and 986-033-006. The Site is relatively flat and at an elevation of approximately 340 feet above mean sea level. The subject Site was previously occupied by a portion of the U.S. Army’s Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The subject portion of the base was closed and property ownership was transferred to Alameda County in the late 1960s. The structures on the property were demolished in the mid-1990s. The property is currently undeveloped open space, mainly covered by grasses and low weeds, with one small unoccupied structure in the north central portion of the site. Historic Site Investigations Beginning as early as 1991 and to date, numerous Phase I and Phase II investigations have been conducted on behalf of various potential developers of the Site and surrounding properties. The subject property has been referred to in several reports as “Parcel 16”. At some point prior to 2012 the portion of Parcel 16 north of Martinelli Way and south of Dublin Blvd. was severed and subsequently identified as “Parcel 16A”. Property north of Dublin Blvd, between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road and south of Central Parkway has been referred to as “Parcel 15”. Property to the west of the Site and south of Martinelli Way has been referred to as the “Option Parcel”. These designations are shown on Figure 2.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 3 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc A detailed summary of all investigations conducted on properties surrounding the Site is beyond the scope of this report. Investigations specific to the Site are summarized below. In 1998 Erler and Kalinowsik (E&K) conducted a soil and groundwater investigation on Parcel 16 and the Option Parcel. A geophysical survey was conducted in two areas of Parcel 16 where underground fuel storage tanks were suspected based on historical military base records: the former guard house boiler room and the former underground fuel storage depot. The fuel storage depot was located on the current Site. No tanks were found. Trenching revealed buried debris, which was removed. Grab groundwater samples from the fuel depot area detected total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd) at a maximum concentration of 120,000 parts per billion (ppb). Stepout borings detected low levels of TPHd in groundwater no more than 55 feet downgradient of the depot area. No benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene or xylenes (BTEX) compounds were detected. E&K collected grab groundwater samples from several borings located throughout the investigation area. Samples were analyzed for TPHd, BTEX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Other than a trace of xylenes in one boring, no VOCs were detected in samples collected from the current Parcel 16 and Parcel 16A. Some VOCs, including tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) were detected in certain borings on the Option Parcel and along the south boundary of Parcel 15. E&K also collected soil samples along the former railroad spur that traversed Parcels 16 and 16A from northwest to southeast. Samples were collected from native soil beneath the ballast at five locations, three of which were located on the subject Site. The samples were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides, selected metals and total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (TEPH). Trace levels of TEPH were found in two samples; a trace of 2,4-DB was found in one sample; metals concentrations were at naturally-occurring background levels. In 2003, Levine-Fricke (LF) conducted limited soil sampling along the railroad spur. Four soil borings were advanced and sampled at locations generally similar to those sampled by E&K. The samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), for phenols and for creosote. Low levels of DDT in two of the soil samples were the only contaminants of concern detected during their investigation. Based on the results LF concluded that no further investigation was warranted in the area of the former railroad spur on the property. In 2001 Lowney and Associates and Subsurface Consultants, Inc. (SCI) investigated a former incinerator and burn pit area located along the northeast corner of the current Parcel 16. Significant analyses determined that lead was the only constituent of concern. 3,400 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil was excavated in 2001 and transported to the Waste Management Kettleman
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 4 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Hills facility for disposal. The case was closed by Alameda County Health Care Services Agency in 2003 as “clean-closed with no restrictions on future development”. Additional sampling was conducted by Treadwell & Rollo in 2005 which resulted in a second closure letter in December 2005 from DTSC which concluded “… the incinerator/Burn Dump at Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Drive does not appear to pose a threat to human health or the environment under a residential land use scenario.” In September 2008 during grading activities a steel underground storage tank (UST) was discovered in the southwest corner of the Site. In October 2008 the UST was removed by ADR Environmental Group (ADR) and the soil in the vicinity of the former UST was excavated. Additional remedial over -excavation and groundwater pumping was conducted in 2009 and 2010. The results of the final confirmation soil samples were non -detect for all fuel analytes. Only a de -minimus concentration of diesel was detected in the final groundwater sample. Case closure was granted for the site in September 2010. In the ir August 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, ENGEO concluded that the presence of VOCs in soil vapor beneath the parcel located north of the subject property constitutes a Recognized Environmental Condition . ENGEO recommended, in pertinent part, the following actions: • “A soil vapor monitoring study and a human health risk assessment should be considered at the Property to…evaluate impacts due to the upgradient VOC source …” • “…it is our experience that historical use of herbicides was co mmon on former military sites: as such, it may be prudent to consider the health risk of near -surface soil at contemplated residential development areas.” A subsurface investigation conducted by Ground Zero in October 2013 wa s intend ed to address those recommendations. A total of five (5) soil borings (HAB1 through HAB5) were advanced in a rough grid pattern across the site on October 8, 2013, by a Geologist from Ground Zero. The locations of the shallow soil borings are shown on Fig ure 3. The shallow soil borings were all advanced with a hand auger and soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 1, 2 and 3 feet below grade. All soil samples collected from the depth of one foot were analyzed for chlorinated and nitrophenol herbicides by EPA Method 8151A. No herbicides were detected in any of the 1 -foot soil samples collected. In order to investigate the potential for detectable concentrations of VOCs in soil vapor, five (5) te mporary soil vapor wells (VW -1 through VW -5) were constructed in close proximity to the hand
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 5 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc auger borings on October 15, 2013 (Figure 3). Soil vapor samples were collected and analyzed for VOC s by EPA Method TO -15 . Various VOCs were detected in the vapor samples. Several fuel -related VOCs were de tected at similar concentrations a cross the site; several solvent -related VOCs were detected at similar concentrations across the site; and acetone was detected at similar concentrations across the site. The relative uniformity of the chemicals detected a nd their concentrations suggests that these are anthropogenic background levels. The concentrations of VOCs were all well below their respective residential vapor intrusion ESL and CHHSL values. The total lifetime excess risk for carcinogenic constituen ts was calculated at 4.0E -07, an order of magnitu de below the threshold level of significance of 1E -06. Similarly, the total hazard index was calculated at 7.2E-03, several orders of magnitude below the threshold level of significance of 1E+00. Results w ere reported in the Subsurface Investigation Report dated October 25, 2013. Current Status and Summary of Concerns Based on investigations conducted by Ground Zero and others, we presented our summary and conclusions regarding potential environmental c oncerns to ACEH at the January 9, 2014 meeting: 1) 1,000-gallon LUST near southwest corner of property. This was remediated by excavation (545 yards of soil) and groundwater extraction (9,240 gallons) and the case was closed by Alameda County Health Care Services Agency in September 2010 under commercial property use standards. The only residual contamination was 114 ppb TPHd in groundwater. Volatilization to indoor air would be the only potential concern and diesel is not volatile. GZA c onclusion: no further action should be necessary. Shown on Figure 4 as area “1”. 2) Contamination associated with the former fuel depot on east side of property. Erler and Kalinowski investigated potential USTs at the former fuel depot area in 1998. No USTs were found, debris was removed from the backfilled tankpit area. Groundwater samples were collected, one of which had 120,000 ppb TPHd with no associated BTEX. Stepout borings were advanced and the downgradient borings contained TPHd up to 180 ppb with no associated BTEX. No soil samples were analyzed. E&K performed a screening level risk assessment for vapor intrusion of VOCs for the site and Alameda County issued a closure letter July 10, 1998 stating that the “primary COCs in groundwater…do not pose a significant health risk…for current or proposed uses of the subject sites”. GZA conclusion: some further investigation or evaluation may be necessary. Shown on Figure 4 as area “2”. 3) Contamination associated with former burn pit on east side of property, intersection of Hacienda and Martinelli. A former incinerator and burn debris was associated with the military base. 3,400 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil was excavated in 2001. Case was closed by Alameda County Health Care Services Agency in 2003 as “clean-closed with no restrictions on future development”. The DTSC issued a second closure letter in December 2005 which
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 6 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc concluded “… the incinerator/Burn Dump at Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Drive does not appear to pose a threat to human health or the environment under a residential land use scenario.” GZA conclusion: no further action should be necessary. Shown on Figure 4 as area “3”. 4) Question of area-wide or limited contamination with VOC vapors. E&K in 1998 found no detectable HVOCs in groundwater. GZA found low levels in soil vapor in 2013, below residential screening levels. GZA c onclusion: no further action should be necessary. Boring locations and results are shown on Figure 4. 5) Question of herbicides in shallow soil. GZA found none in 2013. GZA conclusion: this has been adequately addressed for residential development; no further action should be necessary. Sampling locations are shown on Figure 4. 6) Question of herbicides, metals, OCPS, phenols, creosote and PCBs associated with former rail spur. E&K collected samples from 5 borings in 1998 which were analyzed for herbicides, metals and hydrocarbons. Trace levels of hydrocarbons were found in two samples and a single sample contained a detectable concentration of the herbicide 2,4-DB. Levine Fricke sampled 4 borings in 2003 and analyzed for the above. All were non-detect except for DDT which was detected at a maximum concentration of 60 ppb. This is below the residential screening levels of 1,600 – 1,700 ppb. GZA conclusion: this has been adequately addressed for residential development; no further action should be necessary. Sampling locations are shown on Figure 4. In their January 2014 letter, ACEH agreed with some of these c onclusions but found that other issues required additi onal information/investigation. In particular, EHS agreed that no further investigation was necessary for the 1,000 -gallon LUST or the incinerator/burn pit area. REQUESTED INFORMATION In the directive letter, ACEH requested a workplan that addresses sp ecific data gaps regarding potential issues of concern at the site. These issues are paraphrased from the letter and addressed below. Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater. ACEH requested a map and table that shows the following: • The five 2013 soil vapor sampling locations collected by Ground Zero. • All grab groundwater data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary. • All soil vapor data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary. • Locations of sanitary sewer lines which could act as sources. • Former site features within Parcels 15, 16 and 16A.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 7 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Figure 5 depict s the locations of all groundwater and soil vapor sampling points within 500 feet of the site boundary (except to the south of Interstate 580). Underground utilities are shown on Figure 6 . Figure s 7 and 8 show the former site features associated with the former military base. All groundwater analytical data are summarized in Table 1 and all soil vapor analytical data are summarized in Table 2. Fuel Depot ACEH requested additional inv estigation to define the extent of soil and groundwater contamination in the Fuel Depot area. Previous investigation by E&K in 1998 indicated that groundwater contamination by medium chain petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e. diesel or fuel oil range) extended no more than 55 feet to the southwest of the former fuel depot UST installation (Figure 4) No soil samples were collected. To further investigate the extent of soil and groundwater contamination, we will utilize a direct -push drill rig to sample at the a pproximate locations shown on Figure 9. Soil samples will be collected in acetate sleeves at five -foot intervals to total depth which is estimated to be just below the water table or approximately 12 -15 feet below grade. Groundwater samples wil l be colle cted from each boring using a Hydropunch or similar discrete sampling equipment. Samples will be screening in the field for evidence of contamination using a photoionization detector. Selected samples will be submitted to a state -certified laboratory for analysis of total extractable petr oleum hydrocarbons (TEPH) by EPA Method 8015M and for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method 8021B. Railroad Spur ACEH requested the following: • Description of whether rails, ties and ballast r emain at the site. • Description of the extent of grading along the railroad spur. • Summary of results of previous investigations along the railroad spur. • Sampling of railroad ballast if it remains or adjacent soil if it does not remain. A site inspection wa s conducted on April 19, 2014 No evidence of t he former rail spur was found. The area has been smooth -graded with no sign of ballast, ties, etc. Previous soil sampling locations are shown on Figure 4. Previous analytical results for samples collected a long the spur are summarized in Table 3.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 8 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc We will collect shallow soil samples adjace nt to the former spur along three transects as shown on Figure 9. Samples will be collected from locations approximately 10 feet and 20 feet either side of the former spu r from a depth of approximately 2 feet. The samples will be analyzed for CAM -17 metals, total oil and grease, creosote and PCBs by the appropriate EPA Methods. Site Grading and Stockpiles ACEH requested a description of the sampling or removal actions t hat will be undertaken. Recent historical aerial photos on Google Earth indicate that several grading events occurred between 2007 and 2009 (Attachment B). Currently one large soil stockpile and a smaller gravel stockpile are located on the site as shown on Figure 9. We will collected a composite sample from the soil stockpile and from the gravel stockpile. The samples will be analyzed for TPHg, TEPH, VOCs, OCPs and CAM -17 metals by the appropriate EPA laboratory Methods. Herbicides /Metals ACEH reque sted that the 2013 GZA herbicide sampling locations also be analyzed for metals. Shallow soil samples will be collected at locations duplicating the previous GZA herbicide sampling locations and will be analyzed for CAM -17 metals using EPA Method 6010. Environmental Concern from Phase I Report ACEH requested a discussion of the area of discolored soil that was observed east of the existing structure and whether sampling has or will be conducted. On April 19, 2014 a small area east of the structure was o bserved to retain some water from previous storm events. The mud was dark -colored but did not appear to have any unusual discoloration. We do not see a need to sample this area. Transformers ACEH requested information on whether any electrical transfor mers were previously present at the site. Transformers presumably were present at the site during its use as a military base. We have no specific information concerning the number, location or specifications of historical transformers nor do we know of a ny potential sources of this information.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 9 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Well Along Western Boundary of Site ACEH requeste d our future plans for this well. Stockbridge intends to properly destroy this well under permit prior to site development. REFERENCES ACEH, 1998, Letter to Rod Frietag, Alameda County GSA, re no further action required, Parcel 16 and Option Parcel, July 10, 1998 ACEH, 2003, Letter to Jeri Ram, City of Dublin re closure of burn pit, January 31, 2003 ACEH, 2010, Letter to Brad Blake, Stockbridge, re closure of u nderground storage tank case, September 3, 2010 ADR Environmental Group, Inc., 2008, Tank Closure Report for The Green on Park Place , October 29, 2008 ADR Environmental Group, Inc., 2009, Remedial Soil Excavation and Sampling Data Report for The Green o n Park Place , July 31, 2009. CA DTSC, 2005, Letter to Karen Moroz, ACEH regarding burn pit closure, December 5, 2005 ENGEO, Inc ., 2013, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , The Green – General Plan Amendment Study, APNs 986 -033 -004, 986 -033 -005 -2 and 9 86 -033 -006, August 2, 2013. Erler & Kalinowsi, Inc., 1998, Results of Soil and Groundwater Investigations and Screening Human Health Risk Assessment for Properties Located at Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard, June 19, 1998 Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. 2 013, Subsurface Investigation Report, The Green, 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA, October 25, 2013 Levine -Fricke, 2003, Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis Program , October 9, 2003 Strata Environmental , 2007 , Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , Emeral d Place, Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way, February 2007
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 11 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Appendices Appendix A – AC EHS Directive Letter (01/09/14) Appendix B – Recent Historical Aerial Photos from Google Earth cc: Mr. David Clock, Quattro Realty
FIGURES
1
2
3
ND
12
0
,
0
0
0
<4
0
NT
<5
0
<0
.
5
NT
<5
0
<0
.
5
NT
11
0
<0
.
5
NT
<2
0
0
<0
.
5
NT
18
0
<0
.
5
NDND6.6 Xyle
n
e
s
NDNDND
NDNDND
VO
C
s
TP
H
-
D
BT
E
X
1,
2
,
3
1
2
3
1,
2
,
3
TABLES
TA
B
L
E
1
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
b
)
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
3
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
T
P
H
g
T
P
H
d
T
P
H
m
o
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
M
T
B
E
P
C
E
T
C
E
Ca
r
b
o
n
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Chloroform
Fe
b
.
1
9
9
8
P
-
1
-
-
12
0
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
2
--
6
9
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
3
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
83
<2
<
2
<
2
P-
4
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
10
0
4
.
2
<2<2
P-
5
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
6
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
6.
6
--
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
7
--
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
<4
0
<
4
0
<
4
0
<
2
-
-
<
4
0
<
4
0
<
4
0
<
4
0
Ap
r
.
1
9
9
8
P
-
8
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
9
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
1
0
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
1
--
9
2
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
2
--
9
6
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
3
--
5
7
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
4
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
5
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
29
5
<2<2
OA
-
6
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
7
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
FD
-
1
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
2
<
2
0
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
3
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
4
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
5
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Er
l
e
r
&
K
a
l
i
n
o
w
s
k
i
1
9
9
8
FD
-
6
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
7
11
0
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
8
18
0
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oc
t
.
2
0
0
0
E
B
-
8
<
5
0
50
0
<1
,
3
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
5
.
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
9
<
5
0
72
0
<1
,
2
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
5
.
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
0
<
5
0
63
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
12
0
<0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
1
<
5
0
51
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
2
<
5
0
83
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
3
<
5
0
53
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
4
<
5
0
88
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
Lo
w
n
e
y
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
2
0
0
0
TA
B
L
E
1
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
b
)
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
3
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
T
P
H
g
T
P
H
d
T
P
H
m
o
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
M
T
B
E
P
C
E
T
C
E
Ca
r
b
o
n
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Chloroform
20
1
1
K
-
1
1
-
-
62
0
1
,
6
0
0
6
.
5
<0
.
5
K-
1
4
-
-
89
<2
5
0
37
2
.
9
K-
1
5
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
1
6
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
9.
0
0
.
6
7
K-
1
7
-
-
84
<2
5
0
3.
9
<0
.
5
K-
1
8
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
1
9
-
-
96
0
7
7
0
<0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
2
0
-
-
20
0
4
5
0
<0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
2
1
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
20
.
6
2
K-
2
2
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
19
1
.
5
K-
2
3
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
11
1
K-
1
0
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.
7
0
.
5
1
K-
1
0
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.
1
0
.
5
8
K-
1
0
4
-
-
13
0
9
2
0
7
.
7
0
.
8
K-
1
0
3
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
41
1
.
5
K-
1
0
2
-
-
64
3
4
0
4
4
1
.
8
K-
1
0
1
-
-
67
<2
5
0
45
1
.
9
Au
g
.
2
0
1
2
S
B
-
1
-
-
98
2
0
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
2
-
-
76
1
4
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
3
<6
2
<1
2
0
Kl
e
i
n
f
e
l
d
e
r
2
0
1
1
Te
r
r
a
p
h
a
s
e
2
0
1
2
SB
-3
--
<6
2
<1
2
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
3
D
-
-
<
5
2
<
1
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
4
-
-
<
6
2
<
1
2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
5
-
-
93
35
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
6
-
-
13
0
2
1
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
7
-
-
19
0
3
6
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GG
W
-
1
-
-
<
5
2
<
1
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GG
W
-
2
-
-
<
5
2
<
1
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
B
L
E
1
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
b
)
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
3
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
T
P
H
g
T
P
H
d
T
P
H
m
o
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
M
T
B
E
P
C
E
T
C
E
Ca
r
b
o
n
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Chloroform
Ma
r
.
2
0
1
2
C
P
T
-
1
<
5
0
11
0
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
2
<
5
0
86
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
3
<
5
0
53
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
4
31
0
8
8
--
<
2
.
5
<
2
.
5
<
2
.
5
<
5
.
0
41
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
No
v
.
2
0
1
2
C
P
T
-
5
<
5
0
59
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
6
<
5
0
54
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
7
<
5
0
<
5
4
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
8
<
5
0
<
5
0
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MW
-
1
<
5
0
97
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MW
-
2
<
5
0
<
4
8
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MW
-
3
<
5
0
58
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
MW
-
4
<
5
0
<
4
8
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
MW
-
5
10
0
<4
8
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
96
--
-
-
MW
-
6
<
5
0
<
5
0
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
1.
7
--
-
-
No
t
e
s
:
pp
b
=
P
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
(
m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
l
i
t
e
r
)
TP
H
g
=
T
o
t
a
l
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
a
s
g
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
TP
H
d
=
T
o
t
a
l
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
a
s
d
i
e
s
e
l
TP
H
m
o
=
T
o
t
a
l
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
a
s
m
o
t
o
r
o
i
l
MT
B
E
=
M
e
t
h
y
l
t
e
r
t
b
u
t
y
l
e
t
h
e
r
Co
n
e
s
t
o
g
a
R
o
v
e
r
s
S
h
e
l
l
S
t
at
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
PC
E
=
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
TC
E
=
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
<
=
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
(
n
o
t
-
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
)
--
=
N
o
t
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
ND
=
N
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
TA
B
L
E
2
So
i
l
V
a
p
o
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
He
(%
)
Be
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
A
c
e
t
o
n
e
A
c
r
o
l
e
i
n
B
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
M
E
K
Ca
r
b
o
n
Di
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
Et
h
a
n
o
l
Et
h
y
l
Ac
e
t
a
t
e
4-
E
t
h
y
l
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
2
-
H
e
x
a
n
o
n
e
M
I
B
K
P
C
E
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
M
B
1
,
3
,
5
-
T
M
B
8/
2
0
/
2
0
1
2
S
G
-
1
N
D
6.
2
3
.
5
ND
5.
6
3
0
ND
N
D
4.
3
7
.
6
ND
N
D
<
2
.
0
1.
7
<1.6200NDND
SG
-
2
N
D
7.
4
<4
.
4
N
D
<
1
5
<
5
.
5
N
D
N
D
<
6
.
8
8.
2
ND
N
D
<
5
.
7
<
4
.
8
<
4
.
8
23NDND
SG
-
3
N
D
7.
5
<3
.
3
N
D
<
1
1
.
6
23
ND
N
D
<
5
.
2
23
ND
N
D
<
4
.
4
<
3
.
6
<
3
.
6
14NDND
SG
-
4
N
D
2.
9
1
7
ND
5.
2
4
2
ND
N
D
4.
3
6
.
4
ND
N
D
<
2
.
0
1.
9
<1.610NDND
SG
-
5
N
D
3.
9
2
.
9
ND
10
.
5
4
3
ND
N
D
7.
5
<4
.
3
N
D
N
D
3.
5
3
.
2
3
.
6
3
7
NDND
SG
-
6
N
D
11
4
.
6
ND
15
.
9
1
7
ND
N
D
<
6
.
0
76
ND
N
D
<
5
.
0
<
4
.
1
<
4
.
1
7.0NDND
SG
-
7
N
D
3.
0
<1
.
5
N
D
<
5
.
2
18
ND
N
D
3.
5
<2
.
5
N
D
N
D
<
2
.
0
1.
6
<1.6<2.7NDND
10
/
1
5
/
1
3
V
W
-
1
0.
0
2
7
3
.
0
1
8
5
.
2
2
8
2
7
0
<0
.
2
3
8.
6
7
6
5
.
2
<9
6
<
1
.
8
3.
2
<2
.
1
8.6<3.410<2.5
VW
-
2
0.
0
0
6
1
2
4
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
0
8
.
0
4
.
9
<7
5
<
1
.
6
<
9
6
3.
3
3
.
2
2
.
6
2
6
<3.49.84.3
VW
-
3
0.
3
1
3
.
7
9
.
4
<2
.
2
<
6
.
6
87
7
.
5
<2
.
0
<
7
5
<
1
.
6
10
0
5
.
6
<2
.
5
3.
2
2
2
4
.
5
<2.5<2.5
VW
-
4
<
0
.
0
0
5
2.
9
3
0
7
.
2
3
3
1
5
0
1
0
4
.
8
<7
5
<
1
.
6
14
0
2
.
6
<2
.
5
<
2
.
1
4.2<3.47.53.3
VW
-
5
<
0
.
0
0
5
9.
4
7
5
1
7
7
8
1
6
0
<1
2
<
2
.
0
<
7
5
<
1
.
6
<
9
6
2.
5
4
.
4
2
.
4
2
1
<3.4156.4
VW
-
5
D
U
P
0.
0
5
9
.
5
7
5
1
7
7
9
1
6
0
<1
2
11
<7
5
<
1
.
6
<
9
6
3.
2
5
.
0
3
.
1
2
1
<3.4166.3
ES
L
-
-
-
-
42
16
0
,
0
0
0
4
9
0
5
2
,
0
0
0
1
6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
2
,
6
0
0
2
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
1
0
-
-
-
-
CH
H
S
L
-
-
-
-
36
14
0
,
0
0
0
4
2
0
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
0
-
-
-
-
No
t
e
s
:
Re
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
c
u
b
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
(
u
g
/
m
3
)
e
x
c
e
p
t
H
e
l
i
u
m
i
n
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
He
=
H
e
l
i
u
m
ME
K
=
M
e
t
h
y
l
e
t
h
y
l
k
e
t
o
n
e
(
2
-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e
)
MI
B
K
=
M
e
t
h
y
l
i
s
o
b
u
t
y
l
k
e
t
o
n
e
(
4
-
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
2
-
p
e
n
t
a
n
o
n
e
)
PC
E
=
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
1,
2
,
4
-
T
M
B
=
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1,
3
,
5
-
T
M
B
=
1
,
3
,
5
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Gr
o
u
n
d
Z
e
r
o
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
Te
r
r
a
p
h
a
s
e
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
ES
L
=
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
f
o
r
S
o
i
l
G
a
s
t
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
d
o
o
r
A
i
r
(
R
W
Q
C
B
,
R
e
g
i
o
n
2
,
M
a
y
2
0
1
3
)
CH
H
S
L
=
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
H
u
m
a
n
H
e
a
l
t
h
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
f
o
r
S
o
i
l
G
a
s
t
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
d
o
o
r
A
i
r
,
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
e
d
F
i
l
l
(
O
E
H
H
A
,
S
e
p
t
.
20
1
0
)
<
=
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
(
n
o
t
-
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
)
--
=
N
o
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
ND
=
N
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
TA
B
L
E
3
Ra
i
l
S
p
u
r
S
o
i
l
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
m
)
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
C
r
e
o
s
o
t
e
P
h
e
n
o
l
s
D
D
T
O
t
h
e
r
O
C
P
s
2
,
4
-
D
B
Ot
h
e
r
He
r
b
i
c
i
d
e
s
TE
P
H
A
s
C
d
C
r
C
u
P
b
N
i
Z
n
2/
2
6
/
1
9
9
8
R
R
-
1
-
-
--
-
-
--
0.
0
5
1
ND
<
1
.
0
40
.
1
7
3
2
2
8
6
.
3
3
4
5
2
RR
-
2
-
-
--
--
-
-
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
<
1
.
0
4.
2
0
.
0
8
7
3
1
2
6
7
.
2
3
3
4
7
RR
-
3
-
-
--
--
-
-
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
<
1
.
0
3.4
0
.
0
9
2
5
2
0
6
3
0
3
9
RR
-
4
-
-
--
-
-
--
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
2.
9
1
5
0
.
0
8
3
2
7
3
7
7
.
2
3
3
5
4
RR
-
5
-
-
--
-
-
--
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
6.
6
3
.
4
0
.
0
9
1
2
7
2
2
7
3
4
4
4
09
/
1
6
/
1
3
I
K
H
A
0
0
1
N
D
N
D
<
0
.
0
1
7
N
D
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IK
H
A
0
0
2
N
D
N
D
0.
0
6
0
ND
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IK
H
A
0
0
3
N
D
N
D
0.
0
0
3
7
ND
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IK
H
A
0
0
4
N
D
N
D
<
0
.
0
3
3
N
D
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No
t
e
s
:
pp
m
=
P
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
(
m
g
/
k
g
)
OC
P
s
=
O
r
g
a
n
o
c
h
l
o
r
i
n
e
p
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
TE
P
H
=
T
o
t
a
l
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
a
b
l
e
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
As
=
A
r
s
e
n
i
c
Cd
=
C
a
d
m
i
u
m
Cr
=
C
h
r
o
m
i
u
m
Cu
=
C
o
p
p
e
r
Pb
=
L
e
a
d
Ni
=
N
i
c
k
e
l
Zn
=
Z
i
n
c
Le
v
i
n
e
-
F
r
i
c
k
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
Er
l
e
r
&
K
a
l
i
n
o
w
s
k
i
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
9
9
8
--
=
N
o
t
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
<
=
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
(
n
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
)
ND
=
N
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
(
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
n
a
l
y
t
e
s
)
APPENDIX A
REGULATORY CORRESPONDENCE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1131 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 250
Alameda, CA 94502-6577
(510) 567-6700
FAX (510) 337-9335
January 30, 2014
Mr. Mike Parker (Sent via E-mail to: mparker@quattrorealty.com)
Quattro Realty Group
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295
Danville, CA 94526
Subject: Case File Review for SLIC Case No. RO0003131 and GeoTracker Global ID T10000005547,
The Green, 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Parker:
Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) has opened a Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup
(SLIC) case for the above referenced site in order to review the proposed development of the site. A mix
of residences and commercial development is currently planned for the 27-acre site. One of the
supplemental mitigation measures presented in the Environmental Impact Report for the development
requires that the Applicant/Developer notify ACEH of the proposed project and the intent to utilize the site
for residential uses. If directed by ACEH, a site investigation or health risk assessment shall be
completed prior to commencement of construction.
Our review of the case file, which is described in the Technical Comments below, has identified several
issues that need to be addressed in order to complete assessment of the site. Therefore, we request that
you submit a Work Plan by March 31, 2014 that addresses the technical comments below.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
We request that you submit copies of any reports you have documenting additional investigation activities
or other work that are relevant to the environmental site conditions and not currently in ACEH case files.
This includes Phase I environmental site assessment reports and site investigations conducted for
potential real estate transactions. ACEH case files may be reviewed online using the ACEH website
(http://www.acgov.org/aceh). Specific relevant reports that appear to be missing from ACEH case files
include the following:
ADR Environmental Group, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Future Emerald Place
Property, April 15, 2006.
Levine Fricke, Due Diligence Environmental Review, Commerce One Parcel, Hacienda Drive and
Interstate 580, Dublin, CA, May 20, 2003.
Levine Fricke, Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis Program, Commerce One Parcel, Hacienda Drive and
Interstate 580, Dublin, CA, October 9, 2003.
Terraphase, Phase II Site Investigation Report, Parcel 16A Southwest Corner of Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive, Dublin, California, September 12, 2012.
ALAMEDA COUNTY
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
AGENCY
ALEX BRISCOE, Director
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 2
Treadwell & Rollo, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed IKEA Store Development,
Interstate 580 and Hacienda Drive, April 9, 2004.
5411 ma
Treadwell & Rollo, Soil Sampling and Chemical analysis, Martinelli Way at hacienda Drive, IKEA – Dublin
Off-site Development, Dublin, California, October 31, 2005.
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
1. Underground Storage Tank Removed in 2008. On September 5, 2008, a 1,100-gallon steel
underground storage tank (UST) was discovered during grading activities near the southwest
corner of the site. The UST was removed on September 30, 2008. After removal of the UST,
observations and confirmation soil sampling indicated that elevated concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons were present in soils outside the excavation. Fuel leak case RO0002993 was
opened by ACEH in February 2009. Tank pit soil overexcavation was conducted in May 2009.
Further excavation in the southwestern portion of the excavation was conducted in September and
October 2009 along with pumping of water from the excavation. The tank pit water sample
collected in October 2009 detected TPH as gasoline and TPH as diesel at concentrations of 109
and 42,300 micrograms per liter (µg/L), respectively. Additional pumping of groundwater from the
tank pit was conducted in November 2009. Following the pumping in November 2009, a grab
groundwater sample was collected from the tank pit. TPH as diesel was detected at a
concentration of 114 µg/L in the tank pit groundwater sample. Fuel leak case RO0002993 was
closed by ACEH with a site management requirement that ACEH will re-evaluate the case if a
change in land use to any residential or other conservative land use scenario is proposed.
Residential land use is currently proposed for the site. ACEH has reviewed the case and evaluated
site conditions under the framework of the State Water Resources Control Board Low-threat
Closure Policy. Site conditions in the area of the former UST appear to meet the criteria for
unrestricted use. ACEH is not requesting further work in the area of the former UST in the
southwestern portion of the site at this time.
2. Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
detected at concentrations up to 100 µg/L in grab groundwater samples collected north of the site in
1998. The source of the VOCs was not identified but was suspected to be within Parcel 15 north of
the site. Potential sources within Parcel 15 included two gasoline service station, a public works
shop, and a laundry. In order to help assess whether VOCs in groundwater may pose a risk for the
site, soil vapor samples were collected in a grid pattern from five locations by Ground Zero Analysis
in 2013. VOCs were not detected in the five soil vapor samples at concentrations above relevant
screening levels. In order to provide further information with regard to the location of the potential
VOC sources and the five soil vapor samples collected at the site, we request that you present a
map and table in the Work Plan requested below that shows the following:
The five 2013 soil vapor sampling locations collected by Ground Zero Analysis.
All grab groundwater data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary including but not
restricted to data collected by Erler & Kalinowski in 1998, Versar in 1998, or Terraphase in
2012.
All soil vapor data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary including but not restricted
to data collected by Erler & Kalinowski in 1998, Versar in 1998, or Terraphase in 2012.
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 3
Locations of sanitary sewer lines which could act as sources.
Former site features within Parcels 15, 16, or 16A.
3. Fuel Depot. Further investigation of the Fuel Depot Area is necessary. On April 15, 1998,
trenches were excavated to remove buried debris in the Fuel Depot Area as described in the Erler
& Kalinowski June 19, 1998 report entitled, “Results of Soil and Groundwater Investigations and
Screening Human Health Risk Assessment.” The trenches were backfilled with removed soil and
“track-walked” for compaction. However, no soil samples were collected to define the extent of
contamination within the tank pit. It is also not clear whether all debris was removed from the area.
Grab groundwater samples were collected from 25-foot deep boreholes to evaluate the extent of
groundwater contamination. Based on the results of the groundwater sampling, Erler & Kalinowski
Report concluded that diesel fuel in groundwater was limited to the immediate vicinity of the fuel
storage depot. The extent of soil contamination in the Fuel Depot area remains undefined. In the
Work Plan requested below, please propose additional investigation to define the extent of soil and
groundwater contamination in the Fuel Depot area.
4. Railroad Spur. Further investigation of the railroad spur appears to be necessary to evaluate
whether railroad operations affected the near surface soils. Results from five soil borings along the
railroad spur are presented in the Erler & Kalinowski June 19, 1998 report entitled, “Results of Soil
and Groundwater Investigations and Screening Human Health Risk Assessment.” The borings
extended to a depth of 6 to 9 feet with one soil sample collected at the interface between gravel fill
(possibly railroad ballast) and first encountered soil (approximately 3.5 to 5.5 feet bgs). No soil
samples appear to have been collected from near-surface soils. The extent of grading or removal
of the railroad spur since 1998 is not clear. In the Work Plan requested below, we request the
following:
Description of the whether rails, rail ties, and ballast still remain at the site.
Description of the extent of grading that appears to have been conducted along the railroad
spur.
Summary of results from previous investigations along the railroad spur.
If the railroad ballast remains on site, sampling of the railroad ballast will be required to
evaluate for heavy metals such as lead, which was used in rail car bearings, heavy aliphatic
petroleum hydrocarbons, creosote, and PCBs.
If the ballast has been or will be removed, sampling of the near surface soils adjacent to the
ballast will be required.
Please propose soil sampling and analysis as appropriate to evaluate the former railroad
spur.
5. Incinerator. An incinerator was formerly located in the northeastern corner of the site. In 2001,
approximately 3,400 cubic yards of burn waste and impacted fill was removed from the site and
disposed at the Chemical Waste management facility in Kettleman Hills, CA. In correspondence
dated December 5, 2005, the California Department of Toxic Substances concluded that the site
does not appear to pose a threat to human health and the environment under a residential land use
scenario. Based on the DTSC evaluation, no further investigation of the Incinerator area is
requested at this time.
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 4
6. Site Grading and Stockpiles. Site grading and stockpiling has been conducted at various times
on this site. Since the grading and stockpiling has not been well documented, some investigation of
the source of the stockpiled material may be necessary. In the Work Plan requested below, please
describe the sampling and/or removal actions that will be undertaken for the soil stockpiles at the
site.
7. Herbicides. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated August 2, 2013 and prepared by
Engeo Incorporated, recommended sampling of near-surface soils for herbicides within areas of
proposed residential development. During the 2013 investigation by Ground Zero Analysis, soil
samples were collected at a depth of 1 feet bgs from hand auger borings near five soil vapor
sampling locations and were analyzed for chlorinated and nitrophenol herbicides. Herbicides were
not reported at concentrations above relevant screening criteria. However, the soil samples were
only analyzed for herbicides and not other constituents of concern such as metals are frequently
detected in areas where chemical have been applied for weed control. The lack of metals data
appears to be a data gap. In the Work Plan requested below, we request that you propose soil
sampling with metals analysis for near-surface soil samples to address this data gap,
8. Environmental Concern from Phase I Report. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
dated August 2, 2013 and prepared by Engeo Incorporated, recommended sampling of discolored
soil that was observed east of the existing structure on the site. Please discuss this area in the
Work Plan and whether sampling has been or will be conducted for this area.
9. Transformers. Please indicate whether any electrical transformers were previously present at the
site.
10. Well Along Western Boundary of Site. One well was observed along the western property
boundary as described in the Engeo “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,” dated August 2,
2013. In the Work Plan requested below, please describe future plans to investigate, utilize, and/or
destroy this well.
TECHNICAL REPORT REQUEST
Please submit technical reports to Alameda County Environmental Health (Attention: Jerry Wickham),
according to the following schedule:
March 31, 2014 – Work Plan
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 5
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 567-6791 or send me an electronic mail message at
jerry.wickham@acgov.org. Case files can be reviewed online at the following website:
http://www.acgov.org/aceh/index.htm.
Sincerely,
Jerry Wickham, California PG 3766, CEG 1177, and CHG 297
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist
Attachment: Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements/Obligations
Enclosure: ACEH Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
cc: Greg Stahl, Ground Zero Analysis, Inc., 1172 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, CA 95351 (Sent via E-mail
to: gstahl@groundzeroanalysis.com)
Ryan Batty, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, CA (Sent via E-mail
to: rbatty@dtsc.ca.gov)
Jerry Wickham, ACEH (Sent via E-mail to: jerry.wickham@acgov.org)
GeoTracker, eFile
Attachment 1
Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements/Obligations
REPORT/DATA REQUESTS
These reports/data are being requested pursuant to Division 7 of the California Water Code (Water Quality), Chapter 6.7 of
Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances), and Chapter 16 of
Division 3 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (Underground Storage Tank Regulations).
ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF REPORTS
ACEH’s Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (Local Oversight Program [LOP] for unauthorized releases from
petroleum Underground Storage Tanks [USTs], and Site Cleanup Program [SCP] for unauthorized releases of non-petroleum
hazardous substances) require submission of reports in electronic format pursuant to Chapter 3 of Division 7, Sections 13195
and 13197.5 of the California Water Code, and Chapter 30, Articles 1 and 2, Sections 3890 to 3895 of Division 3 of Title 23 of
the California Code of Regulations (23 CCR). Instructions for submission of electronic documents to the ACEH FTP site are
provided on the attached “Electronic Report Upload Instructions.”
Submission of reports to the ACEH FTP site is in addition to requirements for electronic submittal of information (ESI) to the
State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Geotracker website. In April 2001, the SWRCB adopted 23 CCR, Division
3, Chapter 16, Article 12, Sections 2729 and 2729.1 (Electronic Submission of Laboratory Data for UST Reports). Article 12
required electronic submittal of analytical laboratory data submitted in a report to a regulatory agency (effective September 1,
2001), and surveyed locations (latitude, longitude and elevation) of groundwater monitoring wells (effective January 1, 2002) in
Electronic Deliverable Format (EDF) to Geotracker. Article 12 was subsequently repealed in 2004 and replaced with Article 30
(Electronic Submittal of Information) which expanded the ESI requirements to include electronic submittal of any report or data
required by a regulatory agency from a cleanup site. The expanded ESI submittal requirements for petroleum UST sites
subject to the requirements of 23 CCR, Division, 3, Chapter 16, Article 11, became effective December 16, 2004. All other
electronic submittals required pursuant to Chapter 30 became effective January 1, 2005. Please visit the SWRCB website for
more information on these requirements. (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/)
PERJURY STATEMENT
All work plans, technical reports, or technical documents submitted to ACEH must be accompanied by a cover letter from the
responsible party that states, at a minimum, the following: "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or
recommendations contained in the attached document or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." This letter
must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of your company. Please include a cover letter satisfying these
requirements with all future reports and technical documents submitted for this fuel leak case.
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION & CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The California Business and Professions Code (Sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1) requires that work plans and technical or
implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments be performed under the direction of
an appropriately registered or certified professional. For your submittal to be considered a valid technical report, you are to
present site specific data, data interpretations, and recommendations prepared by an appropriately licensed professional and
include the professional registration stamp, signature, and statement of professional certification. Please ensure all that all
technical reports submitted for this fuel leak case meet this requirement.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND
Please note that delays in investigation, late reports, or enforcement actions may result in your becoming ineligible to receive
grant money from the state’s Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (Senate Bill 2004) to reimburse you for the cost of
cleanup.
AGENCY OVERSIGHT
If it appears as though significant delays are occurring or reports are not submitted as requested, we will consider referring
your case to the Regional Board or other appropriate agency, including the County District Attorney, for possible enforcement
actions. California Health and Safety Code, Section 25299.76 authorizes enforcement including administrative action or
monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each day of violation.
Alameda County Environmental Cleanup
Oversight Programs
(LOP and SCP)
REVISION DATE: July 25, 2012
ISSUE DATE: July 5, 2005
PREVIOUS REVISIONS: October 31, 2005;
December 16, 2005; March 27, 2009; July 8, 2010
SECTION: Miscellaneous Administrative Topics & Procedures SUBJECT: Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
The Alameda County Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (petroleum UST and SCP) require submission of all
reports in electronic form to the county’s FTP site. Paper copies of reports will no longer be accepted. The electronic
copy replaces the paper copy and will be used for all public information requests, regulatory review, and
compliance/enforcement activities.
REQUIREMENTS
Please do not
Entire report including cover letter must be submitted to the ftp site as a single Portable Document Format
(PDF) with no password protection.
submit reports as attachments to electronic mail.
It is preferable that reports be converted to PDF format from their original format, (e.g., Microsoft Word) rather
than scanned.
Signature pages and perjury statements must be included and have either original or electronic
signature.
Do not password protect the document. Once indexed and inserted into the correct electronic case file, the
document will be secured in compliance with the County’s current security standards and a password.
Documents with password protection will not
Each page in the PDF document should be rotated in the direction that will make it easiest to read on a computer
monitor.
be accepted.
Reports must be named and saved using the following naming convention:
RO#_Report Name_Year-Month-Date (e.g., RO#5555_WorkPlan_2005-06-14)
Submission Instructions
1) Obtain User Name and Password
a) Contact the Alameda County Environmental Health Department to obtain a User Name and Password to
upload files to the ftp site.
i) Send an e-mail to .loptoxic@acgov.org
b) In the subject line of your request, be sure to include “ftp PASSWORD REQUEST” and in the body of your
request, include the Contact Information, Site Addresses, and the Case Numbers (RO# available in
Geotracker) you will be posting for.
2) Upload Files to the ftp Site
a) Using Internet Explorer (IE4+), go to ://alcoftp1.acgov.org
(i) Note: Netscape, Safari, and Firefox browsers will not open the FTP site as they are NOT being
supported at this time.
b) Click on Page located on the Command bar on upper right side of window, and then scroll down to Open FTP
Site in Windows Explorer.
c) Enter your User Name and Password. (Note: Both are Case Sensitive.)
d) Open “My Computer” on your computer and navigate to the file(s) you wish to upload to the ftp site.
e) With both “My Computer” and the ftp site open in separate windows, drag and drop the file(s) from “My
Computer” to the ftp window.
3) Send E-mail Notifications to the Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs
a) Send email to .loptoxic@acgov.org notify us that you have placed a report on our ftp site.
b) Copy your Caseworker on the e-mail. Your Caseworker’s e-mail address is the entire first name then a period
and entire last name @acgov.org. (e.g., firstname.lastname@acgov.org)
c) The subject line of the e-mail must start with the RO# followed by Report Upload. (e.g., Subject: RO1234
Report Upload) If site is a new case without an RO#, use the street address instead.
d) If your document meets the above requirements and you follow the submission instructions, you will receive a
notification by email indicating that your document was successfully uploaded to the ftp site.
Attachment 6:
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District " Guidance for Construction GHG Emissions
Reductions", dated September 2010.
Construction GHG Emissions Reductions
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Page | 1
CEQA Guide December 2009, Revised September 2010
GUIDANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
These measures are considered best management practices providing options for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from construction projects. Emission
reductions must be quantified and documented on a case-by-case basis.
Improve fuel efficiency from construction equipment:
o Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minutes (5 minute
limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [Title
13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of
Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for
workers at the entrances to the site.
o Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition
according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition before it is operated.
o Train equipment operators in proper use of equipment.
o Use the proper size of equipment for the job.
o Use equipment with new technologies (repowered engines, electric
drive trains).
Perform on-site material hauling with trucks equipped with on-road engines (if
determined to be less emissive than the off-road engines).
Use alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or
solar, or use electrical power.
Use an ARB approved low carbon fuel for construction equipment. (NOx
emissions from the use of low carbon fuel must be reviewed and increases mitigated.)
Encourage and provide carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes and/or secure
bicycle parking for construction worker commutes.
Reduce electricity use in the construction office by using compact fluorescent
bulbs, powering off computers every day, and replacing heating and cooling
units with more efficient ones.
Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris (goal of at
least 75% by weight).
Construction GHG Emissions Reductions
Page | 2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guide December 2009, Revised September 2010
Use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at
least 20% based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for
roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products utilized
should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
Minimize the amount of concrete for paved surfaces or utilize a low carbon
concrete option.
Produce concrete on-site if determined to be less emissive than transporting
ready mix.
Use SmartWay certified trucks for deliveries and equipment transport.
Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control.
References:
1. California Green Building Standards Code. http://www.bsc.ca.gov
2. US EPA. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction
Sector, February 2009. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/construction-sector-
report.pdf
3. US EPA SmartWay Program. http://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm
4. US Green Building Council. LEED Green Building Rating System.
http://www.usgbc.org/