HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 14-47 The Green Mixed Use rec to CC FSEIR RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple
buildings and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of
future retail and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas on a 27.5 acre site.
The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval
of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project";
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning
framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified
a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93,
and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereinafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR"),
which is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference.
The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect
effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for
developing Eastern Dublin, including the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental
impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation
findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by
reference), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to
development in Eastern Dublin, including the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental
impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA (Resolution 53-93); and
1
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated July 11, 2013 ("Initial Study") for the
Project consistent with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15162 and 15163 in order to determine if a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR was required
under CEQA standards. The Initial Study determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin
EIR would be prepared to address certain environmental impacts of the Project. The Initial
Study also concluded that many of the environmental impacts of the Project were within the
scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately described
and analyzed these impacts for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated July 12, 2013, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also
conducted a public scoping meeting on July 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft
SEIR) dated May 2014 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR is attached
as Exhibit A to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 7, 2014 to June 3,
2014 (45 days); and
WHEREAS, the City received six comment letters from State, regional, and local
agencies and interested parties during the public review period. In accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during
the public comment period. The City prepared a Final SEIR (that includes the Responses to
Comments), dated August 2014, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of
each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and
clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is
attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete
The Green Mixed Use Project SEIR incorporates the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR together.
The responses to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the
environmental issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final SEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft
SEIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR
under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on
the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final SEIR,
including comments and responses, and certified Eastern Dublin EIR at a noticed public hearing
on August 26, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
2
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be
reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the
project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
of the project and approval of the project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, Eastern EIR and all of the documents relating to the
astern Dublin E g
Project are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-
2013-00013, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Final SEIR and
other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PLPA-2012-
00031.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the Final SEIR and
the environmental review of the Project under CEQA:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines
and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final SEIR, including the written comments received during the Draft
SEIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing,
prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project.
D. The Final SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Final SEIR provides information to
the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed
Project.
E. The Final SEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental
impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends
that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Planning Commission further
recommends that the City Council make all required, mitigation and alternatives findings, adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planni g Commission Chair
ATTEST:
C
Assistan Co unity Development Director
G:IPA120131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.14 Att 7-PC Reso FSEIR.docx
4
The Green
Mixed-Use Project
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2013072032
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
May 2014
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Summary of Project ................................................................................................................1
1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues .........................................................................................2
1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................3
1.5 Summary of Alternatives ........................................................................................................3
1.6 Areas of Known Controversy .................................................................................................3
2.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................28
2.1 EIR Requirement ..................................................................................................................28
2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR ..................................................................................................28
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR ........................................................................................29
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR .............................................................................30
2.5 DSEIR Review Process.........................................................................................................31
2.6 Topics Not Addressed in this DSEIR ...................................................................................31
2.7 Future Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................31
3.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................32
3.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................32
3.2 Project Area Features ............................................................................................................32
3.3 Prior Planning Approvals ......................................................................................................32
3.4 Project Applications ..............................................................................................................36
3.5 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................39
3.6 Future Actions Using This Supplemental EIR ......................................................................40
4.0 Environmental Analysis .....................................................................................................46
4.1 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................47
4.2 Traffic and Transportation ....................................................................................................51
4.3 Community Services and Facilities ....................................................................................110
4.4 Public Utilities – Sewer and Water .....................................................................................115
4.5 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................132
4.6 Noise ...................................................................................................................................150
4.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................162
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................197
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...............................................................................202
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR ..............................................................202
5.2 Alternatives Identified in the IKEA SEIR ..........................................................................203
5.3 Alternatives Identified in this SEIR ....................................................................................203
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................................208
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion .............................................................................................210
6.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................210
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ........................................................211
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ............................................................................213
7.1 Persons and Organizations ..................................................................................................213
7.2 References ...........................................................................................................................214
8.0 Appendices .........................................................................................................................215
8.1 Initial Study
8.2 Notice of Preparation
8.3 Comments received on the Notice of Preparation
8.4 City Council Resolution No. 51-93 (1993 Eastern Dublin EIR) and
Resolution 53-93 (Statement of Overriding Considerations)
8.5 City Council Resolution No. 44-04 (IKEA SEIR)
8.6 Supplemental Traffic Documentation
8.7 Supplemental Biological Analysis
8.8 Supplemental Acoustic Analysis
8.9 Supplemental Air Quality/GHG Analysis and Supplemental Exhibits
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4
Table 4.2-1 Wheels Bus Routes ....................................................................................................54
Table 4.2-2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definition .................................................61
Table 4.2-3 Arterial Level of Service Definition ..........................................................................62
Table 4.2-4 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................66
Table 4.2-5 Project Trip Distribution............................................................................................68
Table 4.2-6 Intersection Level of Services - Existing Conditions ................................................72
Table 4.2-7 Intersection Level of Services – Short-Term Cumulative Conditions ......................75
Table 4.2-8 Intersection Level of Services – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions .......................80
Table 4.2-9 Queuing Analysis – Existing Conditions ..................................................................84
Table 4.2-10 Queuing Analysis – Short-Term Cumulative Conditions .......................................86
Table 4.2-11 Queuing Analysis – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions ........................................88
Table 4.2-12 MTS Arterial & Freeway segments short term Cumulative (year 2020) ................90
Table 4.2-13 MTS Arterial & Freeway Segments-Long Term Cumulative (Year 2035) ............91
Table 4.2-14 Arterial LOS-Existing Conditions ...........................................................................93
Table 4.2-15 Arterial LOS-Short-Term Cumulative Conditions ..................................................97
Table 4.2-16 Arterial LOS-Long-Term Cumulative Conditions ................................................102
Table 4.3-1 Current Public School Enrollment v. Capacity .......................................................110
Table 4.3-2 DUSD Student Generation Rates ............................................................................113
Table 4.4-1 The Green Project-Estimated Daily Wastewater Demand (gallons/day) ................117
Table 4.4-2 DSRSD Water Supply .............................................................................................121
Table 4.4-3 DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Normal Year (AF) .......................123
Table 4.4-4 DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Single Dry Year (AF) ..................124
Table 4.4-5 DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Multiple Dry Years (AF) ............125
Table 4.4-6 The Green Project-Estimated Daily Water Demand (gallons/day) .........................130
Table 4.5-1 Summary of Biological Communities on the Project Site .......................................133
Table 4.5-2 Plant and Animal Species Observed on the Site .....................................................146
Table 4.6-1 City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) ......................152
Table 4.7-1 Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards .........................164
Table 4.7-2 Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station ...................164
Table 4.7-3 Air Quality Significance Thresholds .......................................................................168
Table 4.7-4 Construction Period Emissions................................................................................170
Table 4.7-5 Daily Air Pollutant Emissions from Operation of the Project (pounds/day) ...........171
Table 4.7-6 Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Operation of the Project (tons/year) ...........172
Table 4.7-7 Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures ................176
Table 4.7-8 Cumulative Risk at Proposed Site ...........................................................................182
Table 4.7-9 Annual Project GHG Emissions in Metric Tons .....................................................190
Table 5.1-1 Alternative 2 vs. Project Trip Generation ................................................................205
Table 5.1-2 Alternative 3 vs. Project Trip Generation ................................................................207
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 3.1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................42
Exhibit 3.2 Project Context in Dublin ...........................................................................................43
Exhibit 3.3 Preliminary Site Plan..................................................................................................44
Exhibit 3.4 Preliminary Roadway Network ..................................................................................45
Exhibit 4.2-2 Trip Distribution .....................................................................................................69
Exhibit 4.5-1 Biological Communities .......................................................................................148
Exhibit 4.5-2 Congdon’s Tarplant Locations ..............................................................................149
Exhibit 4.6-1 Noise Measurement Locations ..............................................................................160
Exhibit 4.6-2 2030 Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................161
Exhibit 4.7-1 Project Site, Roadway Links, and Project Residential Receptor Locations .........192
Exhibit 4.7-2 Increased Cancer Risks (per million) From I-580 Traffic (Unmitigated) ............193
Exhibit 4.7-3 Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) From I-580 Traffic (Unmitigated) .........194
Exhibit 4.7-4 Increased Cancer Risks (per million) From Cumulative Sources (Unmitigated) .195
Exhibit 4.7-5 Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) From Cumulative Sources (Unmitigated) ..196
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 1
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed project, a list of supplemental environmental
issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each supplemental environmental impact
and associated supplemental mitigation measure.
A discussion of the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
implementing Guidelines to the proposed project is outlined in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains a
detailed discussion of the proposed project. Chapter 4 includes a thorough analysis of
supplemental project impacts and supplemental mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a range
of alternatives to the proposed project as required by CEQA and a discussion of each alternative.
Chapter 6 contains all other CEQA-mandated sections. Finally, Chapter 7 includes the names of
the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) preparers, individuals and
agencies contacted in the preparation of this document and references. Appendices are included
as Chapter 8.
1.2 Summary of Project
The project analyzed in this document is the “The Green,” a proposed mixed-use retail and
residential complex located in the eastern portion of Dublin.
The project site contains 27.5 acres of land is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area of the
City of Dublin. More specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Martinelli Way
between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Drive 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.
The project site is currently owned by the Project Applicant, BHV/Stockbridge Emerald Place
Land Company, LLC. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has identified the project area for future
General Commercial (G-C) development.
The site is currently predominantly vacant and contains no major stands of trees, rock
outcroppings or other significant natural features. One small vacant prefabricated office building
exists in the approximate center of the site that is slated for removal.
Properties to the west of the project site are vacant, but are planned for urban uses in the Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Hacienda Crossings commercial center
exists east of the project site. Properties north of the site are vacant, however, applications were
recently approved by the City of Dublin to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and related actions to allow construction of a commercial center anchored by a grocery
store.
The proposed project would involve constructing a mixed-use commercial and residential
development project on the site that would include up to 40,000 gross square feet of retail and
restaurant floor area and up to 400 dwellings units.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 2
The project would include grading of the site, installation of utilities and services, placement of
landscaping and placement of identification signs. Project objectives include:
a) Initiation of a zoning-level framework to guide future development projects within the
Project area consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
b) Creation a community that is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding
properties and land uses;
c) Construction of a mix of land uses that result in a fiscally positive impact on the City’s
financial and service systems;
d) Ensuring a long-term financially viable infill project providing for the creation of new
jobs, commercial services for the community, opportunities for public gathering spaces
and open space areas;
e) Offering a diverse residential unit offering that will appeal to a diverse population
demographic;
f) Creation of a transit-oriented, walkable urban neighborhood by providing housing with
direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to retail and restaurant uses on-site, the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, the proposed grocery-anchored shopping center to the
north, Hacienda Crossings retail center to the east, and the future Campus Office uses to
the west;
g) Developing a project that responds to a range of transportation choices, including
walking, bicycling and public transit (BART and bus service), to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions;
h) Providing for a broad range of open spaces integrated into the walkable urban village
atmosphere, including children’s play area, green space park and vibrant open plaza
surrounded by shops, cafés and restaurants;
i) Implementing high-quality urban architectural design that enhances and embraces the
prominence and visibility of the project location;
j) Providing for a prominent physical and visual connection to the grocery-anchored
shopping center to the north of the project site and continuity in architectural and site
design between the two properties; and
k) Creation of a gateway to the project site through prominent building siting and placement
of distinctive features at both Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way and at the main project
driveway off Martinelli Way.
Requested land use entitlements to implement the proposed project include amendments to the
Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Site Development
Review (SDR) Permit. The Applicant will also have the opportunity to request a Development
Agreement.
1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues
Based on the environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study for this project (see Appendix
8.1) and responses (see DSEIR Appendices 8.2 and 8.3) to the Notice of Preparation issued by
the City of Dublin, the following topics are addressed in the DSEIR: population and housing,
transportation and traffic, community services and facilities, sewer and water, biological
resources, noise, air quality and greenhouse gas analysis hazards and hazardous materials.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 3
1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measure (if required) identified in
this DSEIR is summarized on Table 1.1. The summary chart has been organized to correspond
with the more detailed impact and mitigation measure discussion found in Chapter 4. Table 1.1 is
arranged in three columns. The first column identifies supplemental environmental impacts by
topic area and level of impact (i.e. significant supplemental impact, less-than-significant
supplemental impact, or no supplemental impact) prior to implementation of any supplemental
mitigation measures. The second column includes supplemental mitigation measures. The third
and final column identifies the level of significance after implementation of supplemental
mitigation measures.
This chapter is a summary of the DSEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15123. For a
complete description of the environmental setting, supplemental impacts associated with this
proposed project and mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DSEIR.
1.5 Summary of Alternatives
The DSEIR analyzes three alternatives, as follows.
• Alternative 1. "No Project.” This Alternative, mandated by CEQA, assumes that the
project site remains in its current undeveloped condition and no development would
occur.
• Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the site would be developed under the existing
Planned Development (PD) zoning that would facilitate 270,000 square feet of retail
commercial floor space and 35,000 square feet of restaurant space.
• Alternative 3. This Alternative would allow Campus Office development under the
existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use category. Up to 218,000
square feet of office space could be constructed in a low- to mid-rise, campus-like setting
at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.35.
These alternatives are detailed and analyzed in Chapter 5 of the DSEIR.
1.6 Areas of Known Controversy
The project consists of constructing a mixed use complex containing up to 40,000 gross square
feet of retail, restaurant and similar type land uses as well as 400 attached dwellings at various
densities and product types. The development would also include on-site parking, landscaping,
signs and internal driveways. There are no known areas of controversy with respect to
environmental issues, although it was expected that the proposal to locate residential uses
immediately adjacent to Interstate I-580 could create challenges related to air quality impacts and
noise impacts on future residents.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 4
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
1
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
s
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
d
e
t
a
i
l
i
n
th
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
i
s
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
tal
Dr
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
1
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
TR
-
1
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
A
r
n
o
l
d
R
o
a
d
(
#
8
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
wi
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
i
p
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
1
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
A
d
d
a
7
5
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
w
i
t
h
a
1
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
t
a
p
e
r
a
r
e
a
;
b)
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
-
ri
g
h
t
l
a
n
e
t
o
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
;
c)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
2
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
Sh
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
5
0
or
m
o
r
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
a
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
a
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
w
o
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
fo
u
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
o
n
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
on
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
;
b)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
3
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
l
e
g
w
i
t
h
a
3
6
0
-
fo
o
t
l
o
n
g
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
t
a
p
e
r
a
r
e
a
;
c)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
s
i
g
n
a
l
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
i
n
g
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
U
-
t
u
r
n
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
;
a
n
d
d)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
M
-
T
R
-
2
.
Th
e
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
E
I
R
M
M
3
.
3
/
2
.
0
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
no
n
-
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
5
0
o
r
m
o
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
S
M
)
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
A
s
a
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
m
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 5
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
(T
D
M
)
p
l
a
n
t
o
e
n
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
b
o
t
h
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
ke
y
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
T
D
M
p
l
a
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
fi
r
s
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
T
D
M
p
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
a)
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
t
o
ov
e
r
s
e
e
t
h
e
T
D
M
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
b)
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
h
a
r
d
c
o
p
y
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
5
1
1
,
R
i
d
e
m
a
t
c
h
,
Gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
R
i
d
e
H
o
m
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
Wh
e
e
l
s
/
L
A
V
T
A
,
A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
(
A
C
E
)
,
B
A
R
T
,
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
t
o
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
a
n
y
c
a
r
s
h
a
r
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
c)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ab
o
v
e
b
y
e
m
a
i
l
b
l
a
s
t
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
d)
C
o
-
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
u
b
a
r
e
a
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
i
r
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
“
T
h
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
”
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
a
n
d
/
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
Du
b
l
i
n
a
r
e
a
.
I
n
v
i
t
e
W
h
ee
l
s
,
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
,
a
n
d
a
t
le
a
s
t
t
w
o
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
e)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
c
a
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
o
r
a
nu
m
b
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
.
f)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
(
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
o
r
ca
g
e
s
)
f
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
g)
J
o
i
n
C
i
t
y
C
a
r
S
h
a
r
e
a
s
a
“
B
i
z
P
r
i
m
e
”
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 6
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
me
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
p
a
y
f
o
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
f
i
v
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
h)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
B
A
R
T
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
B
A
R
T
t
i
c
k
e
t
s
a
t
n
o
c
o
s
t
o
r
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
r
a
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
i)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
T
a
x
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
.
U
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
13
2
(
F
)
o
f
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
t
a
x
c
o
d
e
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
c
a
n
of
f
e
r
i
t
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
u
p
t
o
$
2
4
5
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
fo
r
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
o
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
co
s
t
s
.
O
r
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
m
a
y
o
f
f
e
r
$
2
0
p
e
r
mo
n
t
h
f
o
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
.
F
u
l
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
is
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
:
ht
t
p
:
/
/
r
i
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
.
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
/
r
e
w
a
r
d
s
/
t
a
x
_
b
e
n
e
f
i
ts
.
a
s
p
x
j)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
s
an
d
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
TR
-
3
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
(#
1
0
)
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
i
p
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
3
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
an
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
a
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
a
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
w
o
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
fo
u
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
o
n
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
on
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
;
b
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
on
d
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
o
n
th
e
e
a
s
t
l
e
g
w
i
t
h
a
3
6
0
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
t
a
p
e
r
a
r
e
a
;
an
d
c
)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
4
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
Sh
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
5
0
or
m
o
r
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
T
R
-
4
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
A
d
d
a
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
tw
o
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
t
h
r
e
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
tw
o
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
;
a
n
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 7
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
b)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
o
n
th
e
e
a
s
t
l
e
g
t
h
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
f
r
o
m
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Ro
a
d
t
o
B
r
a
n
n
i
g
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
TR
-
5
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
(
#
5
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
Te
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
L
O
S
F
a
n
d
a
d
d
50
o
r
m
o
r
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
T
R
-
5
.
A
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
D
u
bl
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
(
D
C
S
P
)
-
D
E
I
R
.
I
n
t
h
e
D
S
C
P
-
D
E
I
R
,
t
h
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
t
th
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
a
t
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
i
s
a
g
r
a
d
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
gr
a
d
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
ne
e
d
f
o
r
a
t
-
g
r
a
d
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
t
h
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
l
o
w
m
o
r
e
g
r
e
e
n
ti
m
e
t
o
b
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
e
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
c
l
e
a
r
e
d
,
n
o
r
ha
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
o
r
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
b
e
e
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
s
t
o
t
h
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
i
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
l
y
p
u
r
s
u
i
n
g
th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
al
s
o
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
g
r
a
d
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
at
t
h
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
i
t
s
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
T
I
F
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
to
s
e
c
u
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
6
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
A
r
n
o
l
d
R
o
a
d
(
#
8
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
th
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
i
p
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
un
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
6
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
M
o
d
i
f
y
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
gn
a
l
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
i
n
g
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
U
-
t
u
r
n
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
;
a
n
d
b)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
7
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
q
u
e
u
e
a
t
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
SM
-
T
R
-
7
.
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 8
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
2
5
f
e
e
t
o
r
m
o
r
e
un
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
ph
a
s
e
t
i
m
e
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
9
5
th
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
qu
e
u
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
t
o
3
7
1
fe
e
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
le
n
g
t
h
w
o
u
l
d
s
t
i
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
tu
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
5
f
e
e
t
.
TR
-
8
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
q
u
e
u
e
a
t
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
(
#
1
0
)
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
2
5
fe
e
t
o
r
m
o
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
,
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
q
u
e
u
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
b
y
2
5
f
e
e
t
wh
e
n
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
SM
-
T
R
-
8
.
T
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
t
t
h
i
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
sh
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
ti
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
b
y
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
r
e
e
n
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
le
n
g
t
h
t
o
4
2
0
f
e
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
2
7
0
fe
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
le
n
g
t
h
s
w
o
u
l
d
s
t
i
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
AM
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
by
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
9
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
q
u
e
u
e
a
t
t
h
e
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
e
x
c
e
e
d
tu
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
2
5
f
e
e
t
o
r
mo
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
9
.
T
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
i
s
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
b
y
12
f
e
e
t
t
o
8
4
5
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
.
A
l
s
o
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
m
a
k
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
f
a
i
r
sh
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
a
i
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
L
e
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
1
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
H
i
b
e
r
n
i
a
D
r
i
v
e
t
o
de
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
ad
d
3
0
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
i
s
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
1
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 9
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
t
o
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
c
a
u
se
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
ra
t
i
o
o
f
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
I
-
5
8
0
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
t
o
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
to
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
7
1
.
TR
-
1
2
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
e
M
a
r
c
u
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
3
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
LO
S
E
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
3
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
2
7
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
ul
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
i
n
th
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
4
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
th
b
o
u
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
-
5
8
0
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
4
5
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
LO
S
E
i
n
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
b
y
0
.
0
7
1
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
wo
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
F
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
Sh
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
5
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
a
d
d
4
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
th
i
s
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 10
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
TR
-
1
6
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
a
n
d
C
a
m
p
P
a
r
k
s
wh
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
a
n
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
C
a
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
F
i
n
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
2
3
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
7
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
th
b
o
u
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
-
5
8
0
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
2
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
wh
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
F
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
8
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
pl
a
n
s
,
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
1
8
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
al
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
C
i
t
y
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
1
9
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
p
l
a
n
s
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
1
9
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
al
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
C
i
t
y
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
2
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
p
l
a
n
s
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
0
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
al
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
2
1
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
it
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
or
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
I
T
E
o
r
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
1
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
de
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
o
l
i
c
y
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
by
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
A
l
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
C
i
t
y
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 11
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
TR
-
2
2
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
im
p
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
co
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
a
n
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
2
.
B
e
f
o
r
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
fo
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
wi
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
L
A
V
T
A
,
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
se
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Fi
r
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
u
r
e
a
u
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Po
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
en
s
u
r
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
o
u
t
e
s
.
At
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
a)
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
r
u
c
k
tr
i
p
s
,
t
i
m
e
,
a
n
d
d
a
y
o
f
st
r
e
e
t
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
b)
T
i
m
e
o
f
d
a
y
o
f
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
a
n
d
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
o
f
tr
u
c
k
s
c)
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
z
e
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
t
r
u
c
k
s
;
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
a
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
on
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
r
u
c
k
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
d)
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
u
c
k
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
e)
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
a
f
e
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
e
.g
.
,
s
t
e
e
l
p
l
a
t
e
s
,
mi
n
i
m
u
m
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
o
f
o
p
e
n
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
p
i
c
k
u
p
a
n
d
d
r
o
p
o
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
)
f)
S
a
f
e
a
n
d
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
g)
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
n
d
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
o
u
t
e
s
h)
M
a
n
u
a
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
w
h
e
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
i)
P
r
o
p
e
r
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
o
s
t
e
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
j)
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pa
r
k
-
1
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
&
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
B
u
i
l
d
-
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
5
a
c
r
e
s
of
l
o
c
a
l
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
n
o
pu
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
p
a
c
e
.
SM
-
P
a
r
k
-
1
.
As
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
f
i
n
a
l
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
ma
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
2
-
ac
r
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Sq
u
a
r
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
.
T
h
e
s
i
z
e
,
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 12
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Sq
u
a
r
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
p
a
r
k
s
an
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
l
p
a
r
k
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
p
a
y
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
BI
O
-
1
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
l
l
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
th
e
U
.
S
.
a
n
d
/
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
1
.
T
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
th
e
s
i
t
e
:
a)
A
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
fo
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
U
.
S
.
A
r
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
of
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
.
b)
I
f
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
si
t
e
a
n
d
i
f
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
wa
t
e
r
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
i
s
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
ba
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
n
o
n
e
t
l
o
s
s
o
f
we
t
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
r
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
s
.
I
n
s
u
c
h
an
e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
a
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
sh
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
/
o
r
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
pr
o
j
e
c
t
g
r
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
p
e
r
p
e
t
u
i
t
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
de
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
(
o
r
si
m
i
l
a
r
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
)
t
o
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
an
e
n
d
o
w
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
I
f
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
r
e
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
40
4
o
f
t
h
e
C
l
e
a
n
W
a
t
e
r
Ac
t
,
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
r
p
s
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
(
R
W
Q
C
B
)
.
I
f
t
h
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
r
e
n
o
n
-
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
4
,
t
h
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
an
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
R
W
Q
C
B
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 13
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
BI
O
-
2
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
. Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
C
o
n
g
d
o
n
’
s
t
a
r
p
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
2
.
F
o
c
u
s
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
pl
a
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
’
s
2
0
0
9
P
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
f
o
r
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
a
n
d
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
S
t
a
t
u
s
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
h
o
s
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
st
a
t
u
s
f
o
r
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
T
w
o
or
t
h
r
e
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
co
v
e
r
t
h
e
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
p
l
a
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
4
-
1
.
I
f
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
s
t
a
n
d
s
o
f
a
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
st
a
t
u
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
an
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
,
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
l
y
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
n
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
,
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
cr
e
d
i
t
s
i
n
a
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
ba
n
k
t
h
a
t
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
o
se
l
l
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
ed
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
o
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
of
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
f
e
e
s
t
o
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
g
e
n
c
y
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(
e
.
g
.
.
a
l
o
c
a
l
l
a
n
d
t
r
u
s
t
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
U
S
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
I
n
t
h
e
ca
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
fe
d
e
r
a
l
-
o
r
s
t
a
t
e
-
l
i
s
t
e
d
,
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
s
h
a
l
l
ap
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
Co
u
n
t
y
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
i
n
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
.
O
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
ac
r
e
a
g
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
1
:
1
(
a
c
q
u
i
re
d
:
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
)
.
F
o
r
o
f
f
-
si
t
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
,
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
)
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 14
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
BI
O
-
3
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
im
p
a
c
t
t
h
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
w
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
ow
l
b
y
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
3
.
P
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
co
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
St
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
o
n
B
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
O
w
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(C
D
F
W
2
0
1
2
b
)
.
T
h
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
de
p
i
c
t
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
s
b
e
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Z
o
n
e
2
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
1
1
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
of
t
h
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
’
s
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
’
s
un
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
)
.
Bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
c
o
u
l
d
n
e
s
t
o
r
w
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
’
s
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
1
3
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
r
u
d
e
r
a
l
/
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
n
o
n
-
na
t
i
v
e
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
B
i
r
d
T
r
e
a
t
y
A
c
t
a
n
d
th
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
a)
N
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
a
n
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
t
a
k
e
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
f
o
r
bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
.
I
f
n
o
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
f
i
r
s
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
a
f
i
n
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
w
i
l
l
be
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
gr
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
t
h
a
t
bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
s
t
i
l
l
a
b
s
e
n
t
.
I
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
o
r
su
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
fo
r
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
in
i
t
i
a
l
t
a
k
e
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
be
r
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
wi
t
h
i
n
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
)
.
A
l
l
su
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
b)
I
f
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 15
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
M
o
r
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
i
f
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
o
r
w
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
ow
l
s
o
n
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
bu
r
r
o
w
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
.
W
h
e
r
e
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
i
s
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
n
-
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
,
a
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
(
i
.
e
.
,
a
p
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
a
n
d
ex
t
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
an
d
h
a
b
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
o
w
l
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
di
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
o
w
l
s
t
o
m
o
v
e
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
a
r
e
a
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
a
f
f
e
c
t
t
h
e
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
ow
l
s
.
T
h
e
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
ma
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
ha
b
i
t
a
t
a
t
a
n
e
a
r
b
y
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
Fi
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
BI
O
-
4
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
4
.
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
/
o
r
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
gr
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
n
-
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
f
r
o
m
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
t
o
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
3
1
.
I
f
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
t
h
e
s
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
fr
o
m
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
t
o
A
u
g
u
s
t
3
1
,
t
h
e
n
a
p
r
e
-
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
n
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
A
n
y
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
t
s
f
o
u
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 16
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
bu
f
f
e
r
.
T
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
i
z
e
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
bi
r
d
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
fa
c
t
o
r
s
.
BI
O
-
5
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
b
a
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
in
h
a
b
i
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
5
.
T
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
e
m
i
s
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
o
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
.
P
r
e
-
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
o
f
t
h
e
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
b
a
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
n
o
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
3
0
d
a
y
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
i
t
s
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
.
I
f
b
a
t
s
a
r
e
fo
u
n
d
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
U
S
Fi
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
E
A
C
C
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
NO
I
S
E
-
1
No
i
s
e
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
b
e
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
6
0
dB
A
C
N
E
L
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
4
5
d
B
A
CN
E
L
.
SM
-
N
O
I
S
E
-
1
.
R
e
d
u
c
e
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
no
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
i
n
n
o
i
s
e
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
to
m
e
e
t
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
T
o
m
e
e
t
C
i
t
y
n
o
i
s
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
:
Lo
c
a
t
e
n
o
i
s
e
-
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
u
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
5
8
0
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
u
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
th
a
t
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
6
0
d
B
A
CN
E
L
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
)
.
A
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
f
o
r
c
e
d
-
a
i
r
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
ve
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
i
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
s
o
t
h
a
t
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
c
a
n
b
e
ke
p
t
c
l
o
s
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
’
s
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
t
o
co
n
t
r
o
l
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
a
n
d
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
no
i
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Fo
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
r
o
w
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
5
8
0
,
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
s
e
a
l
e
d
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
n
o
ba
l
c
o
n
i
e
s
o
n
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
Fo
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
,
n
o
i
s
e
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
4
5
d
B
A
CN
E
L
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
S
o
u
n
d
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 17
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
wi
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
d
o
o
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
s
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,
bu
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
s
o
u
n
d
r
a
t
e
d
w
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
a
u
l
k
i
n
g
,
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
v
e
n
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
L
a
r
g
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
do
o
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
I
-
58
0
w
h
e
r
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
lo
c
a
t
e
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
I
-
5
8
0
.
Th
e
f
i
n
a
l
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
4
5
dB
A
C
N
E
L
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
h
o
u
r
l
y
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
n
o
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
s
t
o
4
5
d
B
A
L
e
q
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
.
Re
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pl
a
n
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
Th
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
al
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
t
o
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
th
a
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
ex
c
e
e
d
6
0
d
B
A
C
N
E
L
a
t
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
4
5
dB
A
C
N
E
L
i
n
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
.
I
f
ne
e
d
e
d
,
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
al
l
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
co
n
f
o
r
m
w
i
t
h
n
o
i
s
e
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
th
i
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
A
t
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
th
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 18
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
th
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
o
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
tr
u
c
k
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
A
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
de
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
l
a
n
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
T
h
e
t
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
l
a
n
an
d
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
f
o
r
an
y
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
SM
-
A
Q
-
1
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
d
u
s
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
o
s
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
E
D
S
P
E
I
R
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
/
1
.
0
:
a)
A
l
l
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
st
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
s
o
i
l
p
i
l
e
s
,
g
r
a
d
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
un
p
a
v
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
t
w
o
ti
m
e
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
.
b)
A
l
l
h
a
u
l
t
r
u
c
k
s
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
s
o
i
l
,
s
a
n
d
,
o
r
ot
h
e
r
l
o
o
s
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
v
e
r
e
d
.
c)
A
l
l
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
m
u
d
o
r
d
i
r
t
t
r
a
c
k
-
o
u
t
o
n
t
o
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
o
a
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
we
t
p
o
w
e
r
v
a
c
u
u
m
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
w
e
e
p
e
r
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
on
c
e
p
e
r
d
a
y
.
T
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
d
r
y
p
o
w
e
r
sw
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
s
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
d)
A
l
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
e
d
s
o
n
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
r
o
a
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
1
5
m
p
h
.
e)
A
l
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
,
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
be
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
a
s
s
o
o
n
a
s
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
a
i
d
a
s
s
o
o
n
as
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
a
f
t
e
r
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
u
n
l
e
s
s
s
e
e
d
i
n
g
o
r
so
i
l
b
i
n
d
e
r
s
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
.
f)
I
d
l
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
d
e
i
t
h
e
r
b
y
sh
u
t
t
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
f
w
h
e
n
n
o
t
i
n
u
s
e
o
r
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 19
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
i
d
l
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
t
o
5
mi
n
u
t
e
s
(
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
ai
r
b
o
r
n
e
t
o
x
i
c
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
T
i
t
l
e
1
3
,
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
4
8
5
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
C
o
d
e
o
f
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
[
C
C
R
]
)
.
C
l
e
a
r
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
t
a
l
l
ac
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
.
g)
A
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
t
u
n
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
’
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
l
l
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
pr
o
p
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
h)
P
o
s
t
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
a
t
th
e
L
e
a
d
A
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
d
u
s
t
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
.
Th
i
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
a
n
d
t
a
k
e
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
.
T
h
e
A
i
r
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
to
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
AQ
-
1
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e
n
e
t
i
n
cr
e
a
s
e
o
f
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
w
h
i
c
h
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
i
s
n
o
n
-
a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
d
u
e
t
o
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
N
O
X.
SM
-
A
Q
-
2
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
fu
t
u
r
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
D
e
m
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
D
M
)
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
:
a)
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
t
o
ov
e
r
s
e
e
t
h
e
T
D
M
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
b)
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
h
a
r
d
c
o
p
y
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
5
1
1
,
R
i
d
e
m
a
t
c
h
,
Gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
R
i
d
e
H
o
m
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
Wh
e
e
l
s
/
L
A
V
T
A
,
A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 20
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
(
A
C
E
)
,
B
A
R
T
,
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
t
o
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
a
n
y
c
a
r
s
h
a
r
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
c)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ab
o
v
e
b
y
e
m
a
i
l
b
l
a
s
t
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
d)
C
o
-
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
u
b
a
r
e
a
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
i
r
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
“
T
h
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
”
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
a
n
d
/
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
Du
b
l
i
n
a
r
e
a
.
I
n
v
i
t
e
W
h
ee
l
s
,
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
,
a
n
d
a
t
le
a
s
t
t
w
o
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
e)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
c
a
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
o
r
a
nu
m
b
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
.
f)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
(
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
o
r
ca
g
e
s
)
f
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
g)
J
o
i
n
C
i
t
y
C
a
r
S
h
a
r
e
a
s
a
“
B
i
z
P
r
i
m
e
”
me
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
p
a
y
f
o
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
f
i
v
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
h)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
B
A
R
T
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
B
A
R
T
t
i
c
k
e
t
s
a
t
n
o
c
o
s
t
o
r
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
r
a
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
i)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
T
a
x
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
.
U
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
13
2
(
F
)
o
f
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
t
a
x
c
o
d
e
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
c
a
n
of
f
e
r
i
t
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
u
p
t
o
$
2
4
5
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
f
o
r
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
o
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
.
Or
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
m
a
y
o
f
f
e
r
$
2
0
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
fo
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
.
F
u
l
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
:
ht
t
p
:
/
/
r
i
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
.
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
/
r
e
w
a
r
d
s
/
t
a
x
_
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
.a
s
p
x
j)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 21
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
va
n
p
o
o
l
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
k)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
,
t
o
t
h
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
ev
a
p
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
R
O
G
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
AQ
-
2
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
t
o
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Se
e
S
M
-
A
Q
-
2
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
AQ
-
3
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
C
l
e
a
n
A
i
r
P
l
a
n
.
Se
e
S
M
-
A
Q
-
2
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
AQ
-
4
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
e
x
p
o
s
e
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
t
o
e
x
c
e
s
s
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
a
n
d
P
M
2.
5
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
a
b
o
v
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
-
b
a
s
e
d
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
.
SM
-
A
Q
-
3
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
t
o
x
i
c
ai
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
(
T
A
C
)
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
:
a.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
n
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
a
f
u
l
l
y
e
a
r
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
1/
1
/
2
0
1
7
.
b.
D
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
t
o
l
i
m
i
t
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
fr
o
m
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
T
A
C
a
n
d
f
i
n
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
ma
t
t
e
r
(
P
M
2
.
5
)
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
i
t
e
l
a
y
o
u
t
sh
a
l
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
a
i
r
i
n
t
a
k
e
s
a
s
f
a
r
a
s
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
I
-
5
8
0
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
s
.
A
n
y
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
th
e
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
c.
T
o
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
d
e
g
r
e
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
p
l
a
n
t
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
wi
t
h
I
-
5
8
0
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
s
h
r
u
b
s
t
h
a
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
n
s
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
v
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
.
d.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
i
r
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
t
ro
o
f
t
o
p
l
e
v
e
l
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
s
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
1
0
i
n
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
P
M
2.
5
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
b
o
v
e
0
.
3
m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
cu
b
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
(
µ
g
/
m
3)
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 22
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
4.
7
-
4
.
T
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
a
i
r
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
be
a
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
s
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
e
b
e
l
o
w
.
.
T
o
en
s
u
r
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
a
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
sh
a
l
l
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
l
t
h
,
Ci
t
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
2
0
0
8
)
:
At
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
a
i
r
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
s
)
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
o
f
fr
e
s
h
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
f
i
l
t
e
r
e
d
a
i
r
;
At
l
e
a
s
t
f
o
u
r
a
i
r
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
s
)
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
re
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
;
a
n
d
At
l
e
a
s
t
0
.
2
5
a
i
r
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
s
)
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
i
n
un
f
i
l
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
e.
T
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
M
E
R
V
-
r
a
t
e
d
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
as
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
1)
M
E
R
V
1
3
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
ca
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
1
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
gr
e
a
t
e
r
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
o
r
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
2
2
p
e
r
on
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
4
.
7
-
4
fo
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
s
.
2)
M
E
R
V
1
6
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
ca
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
2
2
p
e
r
o
n
e
mi
l
l
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
as
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
4
.
7
-
4
f
o
r
un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
s
.
3)
M
E
R
V
1
6
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
e
a
l
e
d
,
in
o
p
e
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
n
o
b
a
l
c
o
n
i
e
s
on
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
I
-
5
8
0
fr
e
e
w
a
y
(
M
E
R
V
1
6
P
l
u
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 23
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
wh
e
r
e
t
h
e
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
o
r
eq
u
a
l
t
o
5
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
62
.
5
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
4
.
7
-
4
f
o
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
s
.
4)
I
n
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
6
2
.
5
p
e
r
on
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
sh
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
a
i
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
re
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
to
b
e
l
o
w
1
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
f.
A
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
a
n
on
g
o
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
’
he
a
t
i
n
g
,
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
a
i
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
(H
V
A
C
)
a
i
r
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
ai
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
h
a
l
l
l
a
s
t
a
s
l
o
n
g
a
s
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
x
c
e
s
s
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
o
r
a
n
n
u
a
l
PM
2.
5
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
.
S
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
st
u
d
i
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
a
n
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
ex
p
e
r
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
on
g
o
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
l
t
e
r
e
d
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
s
a
s
f
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
g.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
l
e
a
s
e
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
)
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
,
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
a
i
r
f
l
o
w
l
e
a
k
s
;
(
2
)
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
as
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
w
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
;
a
n
d
(
3
)
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
f
e
e
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 24
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
w
n
i
n
g
o
r
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
a
u
n
i
t
(
s
)
in
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
,
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
t
h
e
f
i
l
t
e
r
s
,
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
h.
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
cl
o
s
e
s
t
t
o
I
-
5
8
0
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
x
c
e
s
s
ca
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
fi
l
t
e
r
e
d
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
ab
o
v
e
)
.
N
o
t
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
w
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
g
e
n
c
y
(
U
.
S
.
EP
A
)
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
i
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
B
o
a
r
d
(
C
A
R
B
)
ru
l
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
o
n
-
r
o
a
d
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
d
i
e
s
e
l
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
m
a
t
t
e
r
(
D
P
M
)
an
d
P
M
2
.
5
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
20
1
4
.
i.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
,
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
,
a
n
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
a
i
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
v
e
r
i
f
y
t
h
e
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
l
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
re
d
u
c
e
t
o
x
i
c
a
i
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
(
T
A
C
)
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
t
h
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
.
AQ
-
5
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
g
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
ga
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
,
b
o
t
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
,
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
p
l
a
n
,
p
o
l
i
c
y
,
o
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ad
o
p
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
g
a
s
e
s
.
SM
-
A
Q
-
4
.
T
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
A
.
1
.
4
(
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
,
A
.
1
.
5
(
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
,
A
.
1
.
8
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
,
A
.
1
.
9
(
W
o
r
k
wi
t
h
L
A
V
T
A
t
o
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
)
,
A
.
2
.
1
(
G
r
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
,
A
.
2
.
5
(
L
E
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
,
A
.
3
.
1
(
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
D
e
b
r
i
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
,
A
.
3
.
6
(C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
)
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
pr
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
i
s
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
p
o
l
i
c
e
s
A.
2
.
4
(
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
S
o
l
a
r
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
F
e
e
)
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 25
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
an
d
A
.
3
.
5
(
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
o
d
W
a
s
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
)
,
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
A
.
3
.
7
(
M
u
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
)
,
A
.
3
.
8
(C
u
r
b
s
i
d
e
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
)
,
a
n
d
A
.
3
.
9
(
C
u
r
b
s
i
d
e
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
G
H
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
,
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
o
p
t
a
wa
t
e
r
u
s
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
g
o
a
l
o
f
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
A
wa
t
e
r
u
s
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
su
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
w
-
f
l
o
w
w
a
t
e
r
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
in
s
h
o
w
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
i
n
k
s
,
l
o
w
-
f
l
u
s
h
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
us
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
w
i
d
e
s
o
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
o
f
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
Fi
n
a
l
l
y
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
2
0
0
8
T
i
t
l
e
2
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
w
h
i
c
h
C
a
l
E
E
M
o
d
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
on
)
b
y
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
HA
Z
-
1
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
.
T
h
e
s
i
t
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
n
o
n
-
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
.
A
s
a
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
e
r
m
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
re
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
i
n
20
1
0
,
t
h
e
A
l
a
m
ed
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
(
A
C
D
E
H
)
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
h
a
t
i
f
a
n
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
is
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
t
h
e
A
C
D
E
H
m
u
s
t
b
e
no
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
A
C
D
E
H
w
i
l
l
t
h
e
n
r
e
-
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
u
p
o
n
re
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
pm
e
n
t
/
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
.
SM
-
H
A
Z
-
1
.
T
h
e
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
no
t
i
f
y
A
C
D
E
H
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
in
t
e
n
t
t
o
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
s
o
AC
D
E
H
c
a
n
r
e
-
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
.
If
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
AC
D
E
H
,
a
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
s
i
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
s
i
t
e
he
a
l
t
h
r
i
s
k
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
f
o
r
po
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
si
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Al
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
.
T
h
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
,
t
h
e
la
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
I
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 26
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
re
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
a
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
C
D
E
H
.
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
o
r
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
oc
c
u
r
u
n
t
i
l
A
C
D
E
H
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
l
e
t
t
e
r
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
t
a
k
e
n
pl
a
c
e
.
T
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
o
f
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
P
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
me
e
t
s
t
h
e
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
an
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
HA
Z
-
2
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
.
If
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
co
u
l
d
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
hy
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
,
s
o
l
v
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
e
x
p
o
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
an
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
H
A
Z
-
2
.
I
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
i
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
a
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
be
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
u
s
e
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
s
a
n
on
-
s
i
t
e
d
u
s
t
p
a
l
l
i
a
t
i
v
e
o
r
f
o
r
s
o
i
l
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
e
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
t
o
CA
L
-
E
P
A
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
r
e
u
s
e
.
I
f
r
e
u
s
e
i
s
n
o
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
wa
t
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
a
f
e
l
y
re
m
o
v
e
d
t
o
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
i
t
e
.
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
re
m
o
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
tr
e
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
ag
e
n
c
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
d
i
s
c
h
a
rg
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
pe
r
m
i
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
(
R
W
Q
C
B
)
,
D
u
b
l
i
n
S
a
n
Ra
m
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
y
w
i
t
h
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
i
f
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
i
n
t
o
a
st
o
r
m
o
r
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
HA
Z
-
3
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
.
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
l
e
a
d
b
a
s
e
d
p
a
i
n
t
a
n
d
a
s
b
e
s
t
o
s
co
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
e
x
p
o
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
an
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
SM
-
H
A
Z
-
3
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
a
n
d
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
o
f
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
l
e
a
d
b
a
s
e
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 27
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
pa
i
n
t
a
n
d
a
s
b
e
s
t
o
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
I
f
de
t
e
c
t
e
d
,
s
u
c
h
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
b
y
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
e
d
o
f
i
n
a
n
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
N
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 28
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 EIR Requirement
This Environmental Impact Report supplements the earlier Environmental Impact Report
prepared to address the impacts of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan.
The Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993 by Resolutions No. 51-93 and 53-93
and included approximately 6,920 acres of land for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
3,328 acres of land for the Specific Plan within the GPA area generally bounded by the I-580
freeway to the south, the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line to the north, Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the west and the ridgeline between Collier and Doolan
Canyon to the east. This Environmental Impact Report is hereafter referred to as the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) for this EIR is 91103064. The City
Council Resolutions related to the Eastern Dublin EIR are included as Appendix 8.4.
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for a proposed IKEA
furniture store on the site and associated development in 2003 (SCH #2003092076). The SEIR
analyzed a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and related applications
to allow the development of a 317,000 square foot IKEA store on the westerly portion of the site
and a 137,000 square foot separate “lifestyle” retail center on the eastern portion of the site. The
IKEA project was never built and new entitlements are being sought for the property.
Consequently, as required by CEQA, the City has prepared and circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) for this Draft Supplement EIR to interested public and private parties. A copy
of the NOP is included as Appendix 8.2 and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix 8.3.
2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR
Once an EIR is certified for a project, CEQA prohibits Lead Agencies from preparing a
supplemental or subsequent EIR except under specific circumstances. According to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, additional EIR-level review may be required only when substantial
changes to the project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when
substantial changes in circumstances would result in new or substantially increased significant
effects, or when substantial new information shows the project would cause new or substantially
increased significant effects, or shows that previously infeasible mitigation measures would now
be feasible but the project proponent declines to adopt them.
As reflected in the Initial Study (Appendix 8.1), the proposed project (“The Green” Mixed Use
project) is a modification to Campus Office development as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and the proposed General Commercial development as analyzed in the IKEA SEIR. Many of the
impacts are similar to the impacts disclosed and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the
IKEA SEIR, although new and/or more intensive environmental impacts are also analyzed in the
document.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 29
The Green project Initial Study identifies impacts to the categories of air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions, biological resources, noise, public services, recreation, population and housing,
utilities and services and transportation for further review in a Supplemental EIR. After
completion of the Initial Study, the topic of hazards and hazardous materials was also found to
be potentially significant and has been analyzed in this document. This DSEIR describes the
degree to which the project’s potential impacts to these environmental categories were
adequately addressed in the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR. It further describes the type
and extent of potential significant impacts affecting the project site beyond those analyzed in
previous EIRs. Where supplemental significant impacts are identified, supplemental mitigation
measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level to the extent feasible.
CEQA requires that an EIR identify a reasonable range of alternatives, which was done in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. One of these alternatives was adopted in modified form in the 1993
approvals. However, to address the potential for new and/or substantially intensified significant
impacts on the project site, this revised DSEIR identifies additional alternatives for the project
site that could avoid or potentially lessen identified impacts.
The Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR are available for review at the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR
Based on the previous EIR analysis and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, the City
has determined that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared for this project rather than a
Subsequent EIR. Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs are both similar in procedural and
substantive respects. Both types of EIRs build on a previously certified EIR. Both types of EIRs
analyze potentially significant changes to a project and/or environmental circumstances when
those changes would result in a new significant impact or would substantially increase the
severity of previously identified impacts. Both types of EIRs are circulated by themselves,
without the previously certified EIR.
With the above similarities, the choice between a Subsequent and Supplemental EIR is a matter
of the degree of additions or modifications to the previous EIR needed to analyze the new or
substantially increased significant impacts. Neither is a “new” EIR; both types of EIRs analyze
the substantial changes from the previous analysis. Based on the Initial Study prepared for the
project, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is appropriate for the following
reasons:
1. The project includes a proposal to change the land use on the site from General
Commercial to Mixed–Use, which allows a combination of residential and non-
residential uses. The overall type and urban character of land uses on the project site
would be similar to the approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
2. Proposed additions or modifications needed to update the previous EIR do not require a
full re-analysis of a particular impact.
3. The proposed project includes actions identified in the previously certified EIR as
implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin development program.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 30
For the above reasons, the City has determined that the current project does not raise new policy
issues as to the type, location, direction or extent of growth. Further, the nature of the potential
changes identified in the project Initial Study generally requires updating or refinement of the
previous EIR analysis, rather than a full re-analysis. Irrespective of the label, and consistent with
both Subsequent and Supplemental EIR provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and
15163, the City will not approve the project without first certifying an EIR which
comprehensively addresses the potential for significant environmental impacts of the current
project beyond those addressed in previous EIRs.
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR
The Draft Supplemental EIR (“DSEIR”) supplements the Program EIR and Addenda certified by
the City of Dublin for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (SCH
#911003064, “Eastern Dublin EIR, or “EDEIR,” incorporated herein by reference). It also
supplements the Previous IKEA Supplemental EIR (SCH #2003092076), prepared for a previous
development project on this site that was never constructed.
This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1: Summary of impacts and mitigation measures. This is presented in tabular
form.
• Chapter 2: Introduction. Chapter 2 describes the organization of the DSEIR.
• Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the proposed project, project
location and setting. Project Objectives are also described as well as future approvals
required to implement the proposed project.
• Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Chapter 4
includes the impact and mitigation analysis for the project. Each environmental topic
includes existing conditions (the setting); potential supplemental environmental impacts
and their level of significance; and mitigation measures recommended to reduce
identified significant impacts.
• Chapter 5: Alternatives. This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and
a discussion of an environmentally superior alternative.
• Chapter 6: References. Chapter 6 includes references used in the preparation of the
DSEIR.
• Chapter 7: Report Authors. Chapter 7 lists the authors of the EIR and organizations
and persons consulted as part of the environmental analysis.
• Chapter 8: Appendices. Contained in the Appendices are the Initial Study, Notice of
Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, Resolutions No. 51-93 and 53-93 approving
the Eastern Dublin Project EIR, including mitigation findings, overriding considerations
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 31
and mitigation monitoring program; and copies of the supplemental air quality analysis,
biological analysis, noise analysis and traffic analysis.
2.5 DSEIR Review Process
The DSEIR will be circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA. Written
responses will be prepared to all relevant comments on environmental issues received during the
public review period. Public comments and responses will be compiled in a Final Supplemental
EIR (FSEIR). After certification, the City will consider the requested project approvals and make
appropriate findings based on the certified SEIR.
2.6 Topics Not Addressed in this DSEIR
Based on the Initial Study prepared by the City of Dublin (see Appendix 8.1), the following
topics will not be further analyzed in this DSEIR. They are listed with the main heading and
specific issue area.
• Aesthetics-impacts to scenic vistas, substantial damage to scenic resources and substantial
degradation of the visual character of the project site.
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources-impacts to prime farmland, agricultural zoning,
Williamson Act contracts and forestlands.
• Cultural Resources-impacts to significant historical resources
• Geology and Soils-seismic impacts, landslides, erosion of topsoil other soil and geologic
hazards.
• Hydrology and Water Quality- violation of water quality and waste discharge standards,
impacts to groundwater resources, flooding, drainage and water quality impacts.
• Land Use-division of an existing community, conflicts with land use policies or plans,
conflicts with habitat conservation plan.
• Mineral Resources.
• Noise-Impacts related to groundborne vibration and airport noise.
• Public Services-impacts to fire, police, solid waste and other utilities.
• Transportation and Traffic-changes to air traffic patterns, impacts related to design
hazards, emergency access impacts.
• Utilities and Service Systems- impacts related to drainage and solid waste facilities and
systems.
2.7 Future Environmental Analysis
This SEIR contains a project-level environmental review and is intended to serve as the CEQA
review for future land use entitlements, including Stage 1 and 2 PD-Planned Development
rezonings, any future Conditional Use Permits, Site Development Review, Parcel or Tentative
Maps, and any other permit-level entitlements that may be required for individual development
projects on the project site. Further CEQA environmental review is not anticipated to be required
for future implementing projects. However, the determination of whether further CEQA
environmental review, if any, is required for implementing discretionary approvals will be
determined in accordance with the standards under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 32
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Location
The project site contains 27.5 acres of land and is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area of
the City of Dublin. More specifically, the site is located on the south side of Martinelli Way
between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Drive to the west. The I-580 freeway forms the
southern boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 986-0033-
004-00, 986-0033-005-02, and 986-0033-006-00.
The project site is currently owned by Stockbridge BHV Emerald Place Land Company LLC.
The Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has identified the project area for
future General Commercial (GC) development.
Exhibit 3.1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 3.2 shows the location of the
project area in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent land uses.
3.2 Project Area Features
Site history and existing land uses. Historically, the project site was formerly occupied by a
portion of the U.S. Army’s Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA). This
portion of the Training Area was closed and property ownership was transferred to Alameda
County in the late 1960’s. The site is vacant and contains no major stands of trees, rock
outcroppings or other significant natural features. Existing ground cover is primarily natural and
introduced grass and other ruderal plant material. Although the site is generally flat, there is
some topographic relief, likely as a result of previous land uses.
The site does contain one small modular office building, currently vacant, that was used as the
marketing office for a previous development proposal on the site. It will be removed prior to site
development.
Adjacent land uses. Properties to the west and north of the project site are vacant, but are
planned for urban uses in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
Hacienda Crossings commercial center exists east of the project site. The I-580 freeway forms
the southern boundary of the site.
Site topography. The topography of the site is generally flat. Small mounds of fill material have
been deposited on the site.
3.3 Prior Planning Approvals
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (hereafter, “Eastern Dublin project”). The
approved project was a modified version of the original General Plan Amendment (hereafter,
“GPA”) for a 6,920-acre planning area generally known as Eastern Dublin. The original GPA
proposed to change commercial land use designations on County property in the southwest
portion of the GPA area and agriculture/open space designations elsewhere in the planning area
to a range of urban uses, as shown on Figure 2-E of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. Within the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 33
nearly 7,000 acre planning area, a new Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposed land use policy at
a greater level of detail in order to “bridge” general plan policy and individual development
projects. Intended for both policy and regulatory use, the Specific Plan addressed 3,328 acres,
supplementing the GPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs and
regulations. (Eastern Dublin Draft EIR, hereafter, “Eastern Dublin EIR.”)
The GPA planning area was located east of the City of Dublin. The planning area is
characterized by a relatively flat plain along I-580, which gives way to rolling foothills and
increasingly steep slopes to the northeast. Apart from facilities on County property in the
southwest portion of the planning area (former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, U.S. Naval
Hospital), the Eastern Dublin project area consisted primarily of open grasslands used for
grazing and dry farming, and scattered residences. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-3.)
The original GPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area with a
mixed-use urban community. The project concept is set forth in the following excerpt from the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Residential and employment-generating uses will be balanced to enable residents to live
near work. Employment-generating uses include retail, service, office, governmental,
research and development (“R & D”), and light industrial. Residential designation [sic]
range from Rural Residential to High Density multi-family. Higher density housing has
been located near the future BART station and along a key transit corridor. Higher
densities have also been located close to commercial centers where the concentration of
population will contribute to that center’s social and economic vitality.
The project provides a full complement of regional office and retail land uses located
near freeway interchanges, local-serving commercial centers are envisioned as
pedestrian- and transit-oriented mixed-use concentrations which include retail, service,
office, and residential uses, and are carefully integrated with surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Open space is a major component of the project’s land use plan, giving form and
character to the urban development pattern. The open space concept envisions a
community ringed by undeveloped ridgelines. Urban and open space areas will be linked
by an open space network structured along enhanced stream corridors. The circulation
concept calls for an integrated, multi-modal system that reduces potential traffic impacts
by providing area residents with choices for a preferred mode of transportation. (DEIR
pp. 2-4, Eastern Dublin Responses to Comments, hereafter, “FEIR” p. 66.)
At build-out, the GPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences, including
2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential with a 100-acre minimum parcel size.
Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571
acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned, all on 6,920 acres of
land. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-7.) Build-out was expected to occur over a 20 – 30 year period
from the start of construction. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-6, Eastern Dublin Final EIR p. 8.) The
major policies of the GPA are summarized on pages 2-9 -10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 34
Exhibit 3.5 depicts the project area in relation to the current General Plan land use map and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP).
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan addresses 3,301 acres in the
western portion of the GPA planning area. Seventy percent of the GPA residential development
and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for in the Specific Plan area. (Eastern Dublin
EIR, p. 2-8.) The land use plan calls for compact villages with residential and neighborhood
serving uses. Employment-generating commercial uses are provided along arterials with transit
access. (Id.) The major policies of the Specific Plan are set forth on pages 2-10 to 2-14 of the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin prepared a Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin project
based on the original 6,920 acre GPA planning area and land use designations, and 3,301 acre
Specific Plan area, both as described above. (SCH # 91103064.) The EIR also identifies a third
component of Project Implementation. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-4.) This component includes
“procedural steps … to be undertaken for full implementation of the [GPA and Specific Plan]
Project; Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determinations on
annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD),
detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park Department (LARPD), and sphere-of-
influence boundary changes; prezoning, and review and approval of specific development
projects.” (Id.)
The City initiated the Eastern Dublin project in 1988 after several separate development projects
were proposed for the area. The goal of the project was to provide comprehensive planning for
development types, locations and patterns in Eastern Dublin, which would be implemented
through future individual development projects. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR statement of
project objectives, one of the objectives of the project was to preserve visually-sensitive and
biologically-sensitive habitat areas, encourage development patterns that support transit on local
and regional levels, and maintain balanced employment and housing opportunities to reduce
traffic congestion and air pollution. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-5.)
The EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of adopting and implementing the GPA
and Specific Plan project. The EIR also analyzes the cumulative effects of the Eastern Dublin
project, that is, the project “within the context of regional development.” (DEIR p. 5.0-1.) As
required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR includes a list of ongoing and future development
projects that, together with the Eastern Dublin project, might “compound subregional (i.e. Tri-
Valley) environmental problems.” (Id.) Reflecting a surge of development interest at the time,
the cumulative projects in Dublin alone included 924 units, plus another 3,133 units on 3,140
acres in Western Dublin, and the potential intensification of uses at Parks RFTA. The Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan projected 11,000 units; while the City of Livermore was considering the
North Livermore General Plan Amendment with a buildout potential between 3,713 and 16,513
units. The various cumulative projects also proposed several million square feet of non-
residential development. The list of cumulative projects from the Eastern Dublin EIR is shown
on Figure 5-A of that DEIR. Virtually all of the potential new development areas in the list of
cumulative projects was undeveloped land, primarily in agriculture and/or open space uses, as
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 35
evidenced by the aerial photographs which form the base maps for Figures 2-B and 2-C of the
Eastern Dublin DEIR.
As would be expected for a major general plan level project during a time of major development
activity, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified many potential significant impacts on both a project
(GPA and Specific Plan) level and a cumulative (regional) level. Mitigation measures were
proposed and adopted for most of the significant impacts to reduce them to less than significant.
The City of Dublin would implement some of the mitigation measures directly; examples include
but are not limited to adopting a stream corridor restoration program, designating substantial
areas within the project area as Open Space or Rural Residential where low density development
will also provide foraging habitat, and continuing to participate in regional studies of future
transportation requirements, improvements and funding. Other mitigations would be
implemented through conditions or development standards for future development projects;
examples include but are not limited to proportionate-share contributions to roadway
improvements and transit service extensions. Many of the mitigation measures also included
policies and action programs identified in the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan documents.
Even with mitigation, however, some of the identified significant impacts could not be reduced
to a less than significant level. Several of these impacts were cumulative level impacts, such as
loss of agriculture and open space, I-580 and other regional traffic impacts, and air quality
impacts. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR identified project alternatives, including No
Project and No Development alternatives, a Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative, and a
Reduced Planning Area alternative, and analyzed whether the alternatives would avoid any of the
otherwise unavoidable impacts. As further discussed below, the City Council adopted a modified
version of the Reduced Planning Area alternative after certifying the EIR as adequate and in
compliance with CEQA on May 10, 1993. (Resolution 51-93.) The City Council also certified an
Addendum dated May 4, 1994 which assessed the modifications to the Reduced Planning Area
alternative and concluded that this alternative “will have no environmental impacts not addressed
in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.” (May 4, 1993 Addendum, p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no
subsequent or supplemental EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163
for approval of the modified alternative.
A second Addendum was later prepared. Dated August 22, 1994, the second Addendum updated
plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May
4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are collectively referred to hereafter as
the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the “EDEIR” and are incorporated herein by reference.
IKEA Project Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse #2003092076). A Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for proposed development of an IKEA store and ancillary
commercial uses was certified by the City Council on March 16, 2004 by Resolution No. 44-04.
This document will be referred to as the "IKEA SEIR." It evaluated the following impacts:
Air Quality;
Biological Resources; and
Transportation and Circulation.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 36
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (City Council Resolution No. 44-04)
for the following impacts:
Excessive levels of ozone precursors above regulatory thresholds on a project and
cumulative basis,
Excessive levels of carbon monoxide emissions above regulatory thresholds,
Increase of project traffic on local freeways on a cumulative basis.
A copy of City Council Resolution No. 44-04 is contained in Appendix 8.5 of this SEIR.
3.4 Project Applications
Overview. The proposed project would involve constructing a mixed-use commercial and
residential development project on the site that would include up to 40,000 gross square feet of
retail and restaurant floor area and 400 dwelling units. The conceptual site plan is shown on
Exhibit 3.3.
The project would include grading of the site, construction of all commercial and residential
buildings, installation of utilities and services, placement of landscaping and placement of
identification signs. A number of land use approvals are required to be granted by the City of
Dublin in order to construct The Green project, including amendments to the Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These are described below.
A portion of the project also includes amending the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed Use, which
allows a combination of Medium density (6.1-14.0 units/acre) to Medium-High density (14.1-
25.0 units/acre) residential uses and at least one non-residential use such as office or retail.
Proposed land uses. Proposed uses would include a mix of residential and commercial uses.
Proposed commercial uses would include up to 5,000 square feet of retail space and up to 35,000
square feet of restaurant space. Specific tenants have not yet been identified but future uses
would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and appropriate
site zoning.
Proposed residential uses would include up to 400 condominium and townhome dwellings in
buildings clustered throughout the project site. The proposed project also includes a private open
space area to serve the residential neighborhood and a proposed trail to connect the project site to
points west.
Proposed retail/restaurant buildings would be sited facing a central landscaped plaza area, “The
Green,” extending in a north-south direction from Martinelli Way to a point approximately in the
center of the site. Restaurant buildings would be located facing The Green plaza area as well as
several pad buildings along Martinelli Way.
The final design, number and location of the retail and restaurant buildings may change
depending on market demand, but the overall amount of commercial development would remain
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 37
at 40,000 gross square feet. The final design, number, and precise location of residential uses
may change slightly to respond to market conditions, but the residential uses would be located
around the retail/residential buildings as shown on Exhibit 3.3 and would not exceed 400 units
on the project site.
On-site resident and guest parking would be provided for both retail and residential uses. Key
features of the project would be a central landscaped plaza surrounded by retail and restaurant
uses. Plaza and open space areas would comprise approximately 2.25 acres of land.
Building design features. It is anticipated that the commercial buildings within the project area
will be a combination of one and two story construction. The residential buildings generally have
6-12 units per building and are three to four stories tall (up to 50 feet maximum). The
architectural design of buildings, use of materials and exterior colors will be reviewed and
approved by the City of Dublin through the Site Development Review (SDR) process.
Circulation and access. Vehicular access is proposed to be provided into and out of the site
from two adjacent public roadways, as follows:
• Martinelli Way: A main signalized full entry would be provided along Martinelli Way in
the approximate center of the site. This drive would mirror a main entry for the approved
Village at Dublin commercial center to the north (now referred to as “Persimmon Place”).
A secondary limited right-turn in and out would be constructed east of the main entry
along Martinelli Way.
• Arnold Drive: One restricted right-turn in and out driveway would be provided to and
from this street, located on the west side of the project site.
No vehicular access would be provided onto Hacienda Drive and access is precluded along the I-
580 freeway.
Interior vehicular circulation is proposed to be provided by a major east-west drive, as shown on
Exhibit 3.4 along with a number of smaller driveways within the site that would serve residential
buildings.
Pedestrian connections would be made to the Eastern Dublin/Pleasanton BART station located
west of the site and to the existing Hacienda Crossings Center to the east. Interior pedestrian and
bicycle circulation opportunities would be provided. Public sidewalks would be constructed
along all adjacent public street frontages.
An approximately 15-foot wide trail would be provided on the site adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The trail would be on private property and would be privately maintained. The trail would
provide access between Hacienda Drive and the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station to the west.
Bicycle parking will be provided throughout the site in accordance with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and the California Building Code.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 38
Site grading. The applicant proposes to re-grade the site to improve site drainage and to allow
for building pads to be constructed on the site.
Landscaping. Plantings in the form of trees, shrubs and groundcover would be provided
adjacent to Hacienda Drive, Martinelli Way, Arnold Drive, I-580 freeway frontage, and
throughout the project site. Trees would also be planted within the parking lots, adjacent to
proposed buildings, and concentrated in the commercial plaza and residential open space areas.
Detailed landscape plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin through the Site
Development Review (SDR) process.
Inclusionary Housing Provision. The City of Dublin requires that a minimum of 12.5% of the
number of dwelling units within a proposed project be reserved as affordable dwellings. Under
certain conditions and with the approval of the City, project developers may elect to pay a fee in
lieu of constructing up to 40% of the required number of affordable units. The City Council may
also allow developers to construct affordable units at an off-site location or to satisfy the
Inclusionary Ordinance by some other alternative means at their sole discretion.
Public Art. Since the proposed project would include more than 20 dwelling units as well as a
significant non-residential component, the project developer will be required to either install one
or more pieces of public art on the project site or to provide in-lieu funds for the installation of
public art in a different location. The value of public art, or the in-lieu fee payment, is required
to be equivalent to 0.5% of the project’s building valuation, not including land value.
Signs. Signs would be constructed to identify the overall project as well as future individual
tenants within the commercial portion of the complex and residential developments. The number,
type, location and design of future signs will be determined through the Site Development
Review process.
Utility services. Domestic and recycled water service and sewer service would be provided to
the project by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
The project applicant will be required to develop a storm drain and water quality master plan to
ensure that stormwater runoff is collected and transported off of the site in a manner consistent
with Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Dublin engineering
standards and requirements. The project applicant will also be required to comply with City of
Dublin surface water quality standards.
Requested land use approvals. As noted above, a number of land use approvals are required to
construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail below.
General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin General Plan Land Use Map designates the
project site as “General Commercial,” which provides land for a range of regional- and
community-serving retail, service, and office uses. Uses allowed in this designation include,
but are not limited to: retail uses, including major community-serving uses (e.g.,
supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores, apparel stores, etc.) and regionally-oriented retail
uses (e.g., high-volume retail uses such as discount centers, promotional centers, home
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 39
improvement centers, furniture outlets, and auto malls); all office uses; hotels; banks; service
uses; and restaurants and other eating and drinking establishments. An application has been
filed with the City to change the land use to a “Mixed-Use” land use designation, which
allows the combination of Medium to Medium-High Density residential housing and at least
one non-residential use, such as office or retail. Office or retail uses could include uses such
as stores, restaurants business and professional offices, and entertainment facilities.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. An amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan has also been requested by the applicant that would change the Specific Plan land use
designation from “General Commercial” to “Mixed-Use.”
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Rezoning. The project site is presently zoned PD-
Planned Development. The existing PD zoning district only allows commercial land uses. In
order to allow the development to be constructed as proposed, a Stage 1/Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezone is required to permit the proposed uses, square footage of commercial
development, number and type of residential units, number of proposed parking spaces,
landscaping and other features. A Planned Development Rezone is being considered to
ensure consistency with the requested General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments.
Site Development Review. Site Development Review (SDR) approvals must be granted by
the City of Dublin to ensure that building architecture, landscaping, signs and other facilities
are consistent with design guidelines and other policies contained in various City land use
regulations and guidelines.
Parcel or Vesting Tentative Map(s). Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of
Dublin to create individual building lots on the project site.
Development Agreement. The Applicant may request a Development Agreement (DA). A
DA would articulate Applicant responsibilities for development impact fees, Community
Benefit contributions, reimbursements to other parties for oversizing of infrastructure, as well
as project vesting timeframes.
The above described approvals and activities constitute the project for the purposes of this
DSEIR.
3.5 Project Objectives
The objectives of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
(DEIR p. 2-5.) All of the identified objectives for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan remain
objectives of the current project as it implements the comprehensive land use plan adopted in
1993. Additional objectives of the project include.
a) Initiation of a zoning-level framework to guide future development projects within the
Project area consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
b) Creation a community that is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding
properties and land uses;
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 40
c) Construction of a mix of land uses that result in a fiscally positive impact on the City’s
financial and service systems;
d) Ensuring a long-term financially viable infill project providing for the creation of new
jobs, commercial services for the community, opportunities for public gathering spaces
and open space areas.
e) Offering a diverse residential unit offering that will appeal to a diverse population
demographic;
f) Creation of a transit-oriented, walkable urban neighborhood by providing housing with
direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to retail and restaurant uses on-site, the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, the proposed grocery-anchored shopping center to the
north, Hacienda Crossings retail center to the east, and the future Campus Office uses to
the west;
g) Developing a project that responds to a range of transportation choices, including
walking, bicycling and public transit (BART and bus service), to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions;
h) Providing for a broad range of open spaces integrated into the walkable urban village
atmosphere, including children’s play area, green space park and vibrant open plaza
surrounded by shops, cafés and restaurants;
i) Implementing high-quality urban architectural design that enhances and embraces the
prominence and visibility of the project location;
j) Providing for a prominent physical and visual connection to the grocery-anchored
shopping center to the north of the project site and continuity in architectural and site
design between the two properties and
k) Creation of a gateway to the project site through prominent building siting and placement
of distinctive features at both Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way and at the main project
driveway off Martinelli Way.
3.6 Future Actions Using This Supplemental EIR
This Draft SEIR supplements the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR pursuant to
Sections 15162 and 16163 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following anticipated future actions
related to the proposed project.
City action on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment;
City action on the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan
approval;
City actions on the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan
approval;
City actions on future Parcel or Tentative Maps, Site Development Review, Conditional
Use Permit, and on any future Development Agreement; and
City actions on building, grading, encroachment, and site improvement permits.
In addition to the above approvals, the DSEIR may also be used by state or regional agencies in
their review of other permits required for the project (e.g. Army Corps of Engineers permit
related to on-site wetlands, CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered
Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board under the Clean Water Act), permits issued by the Dublin San Ramon Services
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 41
District, a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board and other
approvals/agencies as needed.
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Hayward
SanLeandro
Oakland
Berkeley
WalnutCreek
Richmond
San Francisco
DalyCity
Alam
e
d
a
Mar tinez
SanRafael
MillValley
S AN P A B L O
B A Y
SanJose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
PaloAlto
RedwoodCity
HalfMoonBay
Concord
DUBLIN
Fremont
Pleasanton
Livermore
SAN
FRA NCISC O
B A Y
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
Newark
San Mateo
0 2 4 6 8 10 miles
4
280
280
880
680
580
580
580
680
680
80
880
Blue
Ox
Assoc
iates,
Be
r
k
e
l
e
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
rni
a
3-
1
4
-
2
0
1
4
Exhibit 3.1
REGIONAL LOCATION
PROJECT SITE
Blue
Ox
Assoc
iates,
Be
r
k
e
l
e
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
rni
a
0
3
-1
4
-
2
0
1
4
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
County Line
Project Site
DUBLI N
P L EASANT O N
Exhibit 3.2
PROJECT CONTEXT
IN DUBLIN
CONTRA C
O
S
T A COUNTY
ALAMEDA
C
O
U
N
T
Y
I-580
I
-
6
8
0
Do
u
g
h
e
rty
R
o
a
d
Ho
p
y
a
rd
R
d
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
daoR arajassaT
Dublin Blvd
Central Parkway
Gleason
D
r
i
v
e
El
C
h
a
r
ro
R
d
Fall
o
n
R
o
a
d
Sant
a
R
i
t
a
R
d
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
U
B
L
I
N
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
SU
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
L
E
I
R
(
S
E
I
R
)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
3
.
3
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
3-
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
,
3
6
‘
3-
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
o
m
e
l
o
f
t
b
o
n
u
s
,
3
6
’
t
o
4
6
’
4-
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
,
4
6
’
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
,
H
E
I
G
H
T
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
,
D
U
B
L
I
N
,
C
A
KT
G
Y
|
B
C
V
|
S
M
I
T
H
+
S
M
I
T
H
|
Q
U
A
T
T
R
O
1/
2
4
/
2
0
1
4
SO
U
R
C
E
:
KT
G
Y
,
B
C
V
,
S
m
i
t
h
+
S
m
i
t
h
,
a
n
d
Q
u
a
t
t
r
o
,
1
-
2
4
-
2
0
1
4
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
U
B
L
I
N
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
SU
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
L
E
I
R
(
S
E
I
R
)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
3
.
4
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
A
T
P
A
R
K
P
L
A
C
E
Qu
a
t
t
r
o
50
0
L
a
G
o
n
d
a
W
a
y
Su
i
t
e
2
9
5
Da
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
9
4
5
2
6
DU
B
L
I
N
,
C
A
KT
G
Y
G
r
o
u
p
,
I
n
c
.
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
58
0
S
e
c
o
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Su
i
t
e
2
0
0
Oa
k
l
a
n
d
,
C
A
9
4
6
0
7
51
0
.
4
6
3
.
2
0
4
7
kt
g
y
.
c
o
m
OP
T
I
O
N
A
:
R
O
A
D
H
E
I
R
A
R
C
H
Y
KT
G
Y
#
2
0
1
3
-
0
0
1
0
SO
U
R
C
E
:
KT
G
Y
G
r
o
u
p
,
I
n
c
.
,
2
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
4
.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 46
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Topics Addressed in the DEIR
This section of the DEIR identifies specific environmental areas which may be affected as a
result of the implementation of the proposed project. The impact areas are discussed individually
in subsections 4.1 through 4.8:
4.1 Population and Housing
4.2 Transportation and Traffic
4.3 Community Services and Facilities
4.4 Sewer, Water and Water Quality
4.5 Biological Resources
4.6 Noise
4.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Each topic area is covered in the following manner:
A. Environmental Setting
A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general environmental
conditions on and around the project sites.
B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 IKEA
SEIR
C. Supplemental Environmental Impacts
An identification and evaluation of whether the potential impacts on the
environment identified in the Initial Study, should the project be constructed as
proposed would result in a significant substantially increased manner beyond the
analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR based on the standards of significance set forth
therein.
D. Supplemental Mitigation Measures
An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be incorporated into
the project to reduce identified supplemental environmental impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 47
4.1 POPULATION AND HOUSING
INTRODUCTION
This topic of population, housing and employment was addressed in Section 3.2 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. This section of the DEIR updates the analysis in the EDSP based upon the proposed
amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to add population
through residential development on this site that is currently approved for commercial land uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is vacant and contains no dwellings. The most recent action of the City of Dublin
was to approve a Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning on the site to allow development of up
to 305,000 square foot shopping center, which was not constructed. The project site is currently
designated as “General Commercial” on the Dublin General Plan Land Use Diagram and in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR discussed the anticipated build-out number of jobs
within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area as 28,238 and the
number of anticipated residents as 27,794. At build-out, there would be approximately 17,970
dwellings at various densities and product types.
The topic of jobs/housing balance in the Tri-Valley area was also discussed in the EDSP EIR.
No impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
IKEA SEIR. The topic of population, housing and employment was not analyzed in the IKEA
SEIR.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Dublin General Plan. The General Plan land use designation allows for a range of regional and
community serving retail, service and office uses, restaurant and other eating and drinking
establishments and similar uses. Mixed-use projects incorporating retail, service and/or office
uses with residential uses are allowed as part of a mix when location and design ensure
compatibility.
The Dublin General Plan includes the following guiding and implementing policies dealing with
residential compatibility.
• Guiding Policy 2.5.4.A. Encourage the development of a balanced mixed-use community
in the Eastern Extended Planning Area, that is well integrated with both natural and urban
systems, and provides for a safe, comfortable and attractive environmental for living and
working.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 48
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Specific Plan designed the project site as “General
Commercial,” that allows a range of regional and community service retail, service and office
uses. Mixed–use projects incorporating retail, service and/or residential uses are encouraged with
residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility.
The following Specific Plan policies address land use and residential location and diversity.
• Policy 4.2. Encourage higher density residential development within convenient walking
distance of shopping areas, employment centers, transit stations/stops and other
community facilities.
• Policy 4-5. Concentrate residential development in the less environmentally constrained
portions of the plan area and encourage cluster development as a method of reducing or
avoiding impact to constrained or environmentally sensitive areas.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section of the SEIR assess the impacts of introducing up to 400 dwellings within the
commercial-designated site and the potential to induce, directly or indirectly, population growth
on surrounding properties.
Significance Criteria. The following criterion has been used to identify the significance of any
supplemental population and housing as a result of approving and implementing a proposed
project:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
Potential Growth Inducement Impact. As noted in the Project Description,
proposed residential uses would include up to 400 condominium and townhome dwellings in
buildings clustered throughout the project site.
The City of Dublin currently uses a standard per dwelling unit household population of 2.7
persons per dwelling. This is based on the 2010 federal census and State Department of Finance
population data (Marnie Delgado, Dublin Community Development Department, 8/19/13),
Based on the current dwelling unit occupancy rate, there would be up to 1,080 residents on the
site at full build-out of the residential portion of the project.
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR used differing per-dwelling occupancy calculations (see Table 3.2-
5). These factors are 2.0 persons per dwelling for attached units (condominium and townhouses)
and 3.2 persons per dwelling for single-family detached dwellings. Using these occupancy
factors, the residential portion of the project would generate up to 800 residents.
The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond that
already forecasted for the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin Housing Element estimates that the
population of the City will be 62,700 residents in 2020. The proposed project provides for the
future development of up to 400 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.7
persons per household, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 49
1,080 persons. Dublin’s current population (2013) is 50,254 persons. The addition of 1,080
people is expected to be within the projected number of City residents in 2020. To the extend
the Project’s population growth is in addition to the projected population growth in 2020, it will
not constitute substantial population growth because it would only represent a 1.7% increase in
the total anticipated population for the City.
The proposed project would increase the residential population generate by the project site over
that currently permitted. The current General Commercial General Plan land use designation
allows “mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses are encouraged, with
residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility,”
so some number of residential uses could be permitted on site without a General Plan
Amendment.
Additionally, the City is either considering, or has already approved, a number of projects where
the proposed/approved number of residential units is less than previously anticipated, and where
the development density on several different parcels within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has
been reduced. These projects include:
1. The Groves Lot 3: Previously approved for 304 units, now approved for 122 units;
2. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3: Previously approved for 484 units, project reconfigured and
approved with 437 units;
3. Transit Center Site A-1: The Transit Center Master Plan allocated 131 units to the site,
the City is currently processing a General Plan Amendment request to reduce the number
of units on site to 52; and
4. Wallis Ranch: Previously approved for 935 units, the current project proposal is for 806
units.
Taking into account the above projects, the number of units expected to be constructed in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is reduced by 437 units. With the addition of the proposed 400 unit
project, the end result is still a 37 unit reduction in the total number of units expected in Eastern
Dublin.
The proposed mixed-use project would also be consistent with applicable policies contained in
the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that encourage higher-density mixed-
use developments near transit stops. The proposed project would also further the intent and
purpose of the regional Bay Area Plan by providing higher density housing with a mix of
commercial uses in a Priority Development Plan (PDA) plan area.
Finally, the proposed project would rely on existing roads to provide access to and from the site
as well as using existing major water and wastewater lines in adjacent toads. There would be no
requirement to extend roads or major utility lines to serve the project, since these currently exist.
For the reasons set forth above, the proposed project would not result in substantial population
growth in the City.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 50
Cumulative impacts. The appropriate area of analysis for cumulative population growth
inducing impacts is the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as described in the Project Description
section of this DSEIR. The project site is surrounded on three sides by properties that are already
currently developed or have pending development applications on file with the City of Dublin.
The Dublin Transit Center has been approved west of the project site and the Hacienda Crossings
regional commercial site is located east of The Green site. The City of Dublin has approved The
Village at Dublin retail commercial project to the north. Therefore, all surrounding properties
have been developed or are considering development and there would be no cumulative impact
with respect to inducement of population growth within the immediately surrounding area.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 51
4.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
Transportation and circulation for this development site was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Eastern Dublin EIR), a program
EIR for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area. It was also analyzed in
the IKEA SEIR. This section describes the current transportation-related setting. It examines the
potential effects associated with the implementation of the proposed project on the near-term and
future transportation system to determine if they would result in new significant impacts or
substantial increase in severity of previously identified impacts in the previous EIRs.
Information and analysis included in the following section was prepared by Kittelson &
Associates in October 2013. Technical information, including level of service calculations, is on
file with the City of Dublin.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Roadway Network. The roadway network is made up of freeways, arterials, collectors
and local streets. Figure 4.2-1 illustrates the roadway network in the project vicinity.
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 197,000 average daily vehicles and
15,800 peak hour vehicles1 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.
I-580 is designated as a Route of Regional Significance (RRS) in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan and Action Plans Update (Tri-Valley Action Plan) adopted by the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council (TVTC) in November 2009. Routes of Regional Significance in the Tri-Valley Action
Plan are major roadway and freeway corridors that serve regional traffic. Aside from I-580,
Tassajara Road, Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard, and Dougherty Road in the project vicinity
are also designated as Routes of Regional Significance. These routes along with other key
arterials, collectors, and local streets in the study area are described below.
1 California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch, 2012.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 53
Arterials, Collectors and Local Streets. A network of arterial, collector and local roadways
provide local and regional connections to and from the project site.
Martinelli Way is an east-west collector that spans between Iron Horse Parkway and
Hacienda Drive. It serves as the northern boundary and provides the main vehicular
access to the project site. In the immediate vicinity of the project site, Martinelli Way is a
divided road with two to three travel lanes on each direction but narrows to one travel
lane in each direction west of Arnold Road.
Hacienda Drive is a six-lane divided roadway in the project’s vicinity and serves as the
eastern boundary of the Project site. It serves as the eastern boundary of the project site.
The north-south roadway extends between Gleason Drive in Dublin to West Las Positas
Boulevard in Pleasanton serving a number of retail commercial centers and business
parks along the corridor. Hacienda Drive provides access to I-580 at its ramps just south
of the project site and is a designated Route of Regional Significance. It is classified as a
collector road north of I-580 and an arterial south of I-580.
Arnold Road serves as the western boundary and provides vehicular access to the project
site. It has two travel lanes in the immediate vicinity of the site. The collector road
extends between Santa Rita Jail just north of Broder Boulevard and Altamirano Avenue
which is a frontage road on the north side of I-580 that provides access to the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART station. There is no freeway access from Arnold Road.
Dublin Boulevard runs parallel to I-580 in the east-west direction through Dublin. The
Route of Regional Significance is classified as a six-lane divided arterial west of
Tassajara Road through Dougherty Road past Interstate 680. Dublin Boulevard extends
east of Tassajara Road to Fallon Road as a four- to five-lane collector road.
Tassajara Road/ Santa Rita Road is a north-south arterial that extends from the Contra
Costa County line to I-580 east of the project site as Tassajara Road. North of the Contra
Costa County line, it continues as Camino Tassajara, which runs northwesterly to just
west of Interstate 680 in Danville. The Danville segment is called Sycamore Valley
Road. South of I-580, the road continues as Santa Rita Road, which runs southwesterly to
downtown Pleasanton. The segment that runs through downtown is called Main Street.
The route of regional significance provides access to I-580 and has five to seven lanes in
the study area.
Dougherty Road is a six-lane arterial that spans from I-580 north to Contra Costa County,
where it continues as Bollinger Canyon Road and travels northwesterly to terminate at
Crow Canyon Road west of Interstate 680 in San Ramon. South of I-580, Dougherty
Road is known as Hopyard Road, which extends southerly to downtown Pleasanton.
Central Parkway is a collector, which runs in an east-west direction parallel to Dublin
Boulevard between Arnold Road and Fallon Road. It is a two-lane divided road with
raised landscaped medians.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 54
Existing Transit Service. Public transit services in the vicinity of the project site include
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) fixed-route and paratransit bus services
and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) commuter rail.
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority. Wheels is a fixed-route bus service provided by
the LAVTA for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. There are
currently seven routes that serve the project site vicinity including two school-focused routes
(Route 501 and 502). All but the school routes include stops on Dublin Boulevard and at the
(East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART station less than a quarter mile from the project site. In addition,
bus stops are also found along Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive.
Table 4.2-1 describes the routes, schedule, average number of passengers per hour on each route,
and estimated number of boardings during the peak hour.
Table 4.2-1. Wheels Bus Routes
Bus
Line Route Description Schedule
Average
Passengers/Hr*
Peak Hour
Boardings*
1 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to
East Dublin
Weekdays 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. over the weekend, 30-
minute headways
7.3 13
2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART
BART to Dublin Ranch Weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and
6:30 p.m., 45-60 minutes headways
11.6 25
12 Transit Center to
Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., 30-60
minute headways 13.5 48
54
Pleasanton ACE Station to
Hacienda Business Park to
Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Weekdays between 5:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., 60-90 minute headways 24.7 25
R^
Livermore to Dublin/
Pleasanton BART to
Stoneridge Mall
Weekdays between 5:15 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 15-
minute headways
N/A N/A
501 East Dublin to Dublin High
School
One bus operates between 7:10 a.m. and 7:40 a.m.
in the morning and one between 2:55 p.m. and 3:25
p.m. in the afternoon on weekdays
N/A N/A
502 Dublin Ranch Village and
Dublin High School
One bus operates between 7:10 a.m. and 7:40 a.m.
in the morning and one between 2:55 p.m. and 3:25
p.m. in the afternoon on weekdays
N/A N/A
N/A = not available; * Per LAVTA Fiscal Year 2011 data.
^ Route R is a bus RAPID transit route that provides faster transit service in the Tri-Valley area.
Source: LAVTA Wheels website: <http://www.wheelsbus.com/>accessed on October 14, 2013.
LAVTA, Short Range Transit Plan FY2012-2021, adopted November 2012.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). BART provides transit rail service to San Francisco, Oakland,
Pleasanton, Pittsburg, Richmond, Fremont and a number of intermediate stations from the (East)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, which is approximately one-quarter mile from the project site.
The BART station also serves as a transit hub, where bus lines converge and offer bus transfers.
BART operates in 5- to 20-minute intervals between 4:00 a.m. and midnight, Monday through
Friday; 6:00 a.m. to midnight on Saturdays; and 8:00 a.m. to midnight on Sundays and major
holidays.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 55
Existing Bicycle Facilities. The existing and proposed bicycle facilities in Dublin are identified
in the City’s Bikeways Master Plan2 and in the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the
City of Dublin General Plan3. Originally adopted in 2007, the Bikeways Master Plan is being
updated. Bikeways are defined by the following three classes in the California Department of
Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual:
Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of
bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.
Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-
exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited,
but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
Class III – Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and
shared with pedestrians and motorists.
A Class I bike path, the Iron Horse Trail, is located roughly a half mile from the project site. The
Iron Horse Trail is a regional Class I bikeway that currently starts near the (East)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and runs northerly through Tri-Valley cities to terminate near
State Route 4 in Concord. When completed, the Iron Horse Trail will extend east from the (East)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to the San Joaquin County line east of Livermore. Another
Class I bikeway on the north side of Dublin Boulevard connects the Iron Horse Trail with
Tassajara Creek Trail, another Class I bikeway to the east that continues northeasterly to
Tassajara Road. A Class I bike path is also provided along the east side of Dougherty Road from
its intersection with the Iron Horse Trail to the Contra Costa County line.
Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road, and Central Parkway. In addition, Class II bike lanes can be found on the west side of
Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Martinelli Way and on both sides of Arnold Road
north of Dublin Boulevard. The City of Dublin has proposed the completion of the Class II
bikeways on Arnold Drive from Martinelli Way to (East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, on
Martinelli Way between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway, and along Altamirano Avenue
between Arnold Road and the (East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART parking lot, which would provide
a multimodal connection to the project site. Class II bike lanes are also proposed on the west side
of Dougherty Road, and along Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard south of Dublin
Boulevard.
Existing Pedestrian Facilities. The City is currently developing a Pedestrian Master Plan. The
Plan will establish goals and policies related to pedestrian facilities and circulation in Dublin.
Sidewalks are generally provided along the frontage of developed parcels in the project vicinity.
Even along undeveloped parcels, a separated walkway is usually provided to provide
uninterrupted pedestrian access. The sidewalks are often separated from the roadway by planting
strips or screening trees particularly along arterials. While there are no concrete sidewalks along
2 City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, Fehr and Peers, June 2007.
3 City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985 and amended as of June 2013.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 56
Martinelli Way and Arnold Road along the project site frontage, paved asphalt walkways are
provided along the north side of on Martinelli Way and along the west side on Arnold Road. On
the eastside of project site along Hacienda Drive, there is a concrete sidewalk with planting strip.
A concrete sidewalk is also provided along the south side of Altamirano Avenue connecting the
project site with the (East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
Marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are provided across all legs of the Martinelli
Way intersections of Arnold Road and the project driveway access and across all but the south
leg of the Hacienda Drive intersection. They are also provided across all legs of the Dublin
Boulevard intersections of Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road. Curb ramps are also provided at all
corners of these five intersections.
Regulatory Setting. A number of agencies have jurisdictions over the project area. These
agencies are briefly discussed below.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans has jurisdiction over state
highways in the project vicinity. Caltrans constructs and maintains all state highways, and sets
design standards that are often used by local governments.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is the state-designated metropolitan
planning organization for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area; it has authority for regional
planning, distributing and administering federal and state funds for all modes of transportation,
and assuring that projects are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). Alameda CTC coordinates
transportation planning efforts throughout Alameda County and programs local, regional, state
and federal funding for project implementation. It develops Countywide Transportation Plan
(CTP), a long-range policy document that guides transportation funding decisions. The Alameda
CTC also acts as the Congestion Management Agency for Alameda County which is
legislatively required to develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP). CMP requires
analysis of Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadway and transit systems if a project
generates 100 or more PM peak hour trips.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). TVTC is comprised of the Cities of Dublin, San
Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore, the Town of Danville, and Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties. It developed the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, last updated in 2009, to
address transportation issues within the Tri-Valley area. The Plan designates Routes of Regional
Significance, which are roadways and freeway corridors that serve regional traffic. TVTC
coordinates the transportation planning in the Tri-Valley area and oversees the expenditures of
the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, which is a traffic impact fee levied on new
developments.
City of Dublin. The City of Dublin is the primary local agency for determining the future success
of the East Dublin community. The City’s General Plan outlines the goals for future growth and
the City of Dublin municipal codes enforce the rules and regulations. Also, the Eastern Dublin
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 57
Specific Plan, last updated in 2010, sets forth specific goals, polices and standards applicable to
East Dublin.
The City of Dublin has adopted three fee programs to fund necessary improvements. All
development projects in East Dublin are require to contribute a proportionate share to these fee
programs or construct the improvements included in the programs.
East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. The City of Dublin has adopted the East
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program in 1995 to fund transportation improvements in 1) the
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment project area; 2) other areas of Dublin; and 3) the
region where developments in East Dublin would affect. Such improvements includes
those assumed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, identified as mitigation measures
in the EIR, and necessary for the East Dublin area to develop. The portion of the fee
program that funds regional improvements has been replaced by the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee described below.
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. The Tri-Valley Transportation Development
Fee was established in conjunction with the Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and San
Ramon, the Town of Danville, and the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa in 1998.
The intent of the fee is to fund transportation improvements that would benefit the Tri-
Valley region.
Freeway Interchange Fee. The Freeway Interchange Fee was adopted by the City of
Dublin to reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain interchanges on I-580
that also benefit East Dublin.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The East Dublin EIR evaluated transportation conditions for Year 2010
scenario and Cumulative Build-out scenario. All adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern
Dublin EIR would apply to development projects within East Dublin. The City has established
fee programs to collect fair share contributions for implementation of the improvements. Such
programs are described in the “City of Dublin Fee Program” section below. Other impacts and
mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR are summarized below.
Freeway Operations. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan project would have residual
significant and unavoidable impact related to freeway operations at the following segments under
Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout scenarios:
I-580 between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B)
Upon certification of the East Dublin Specific Plan EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Resolution No. 53.93) for this significant and unavoidable impact.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 58
The EIR further concluded that the significant impacts related to the following freeway segments
would be reduced to level of insignificance under Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout
scenarios:
I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C)
I-680 north of I-580 interchange (IM 3.3/D)
I-580 east of Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/E)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on freeway operations:
Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees to participate in a
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. (MM 3.3/2.0)
The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation
mitigation programs (MM 3.3/2.1, MM 3.3/3.0, and MM 3.3/4.0) and shall require all
future developments to participate in regional transportation mitigation programs
(MM 3.3/5.0) as determined by regional transportation studies.
The Project shall contribute a proportionate share to planned ultimate improvements
at the I-580/I-680 interchange as implemented by Caltrans. The assessed costs of
freeway interchange improvements shall include the costs of revised freeway ramp
connections to Dublin and the associated mitigation on adjacent local streets. (MM
3.3/4.0)
The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the construction of auxiliary
lanes on I-580 east of Airway Boulevard as implemented by Caltrans. (MM 3.3/5.0)
Intersection Operations. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the Specific Plan project
would have residual significant and unavoidable impacts at the following intersections under
Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout scenarios:
Santa Rita Road with the I-580 eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I) (#18) 4
Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard (IM 3.3/M) (#10)
Tassajara Road with Dublin Boulevard (IM 3.3/M) (#16)
Upon certification of the East Dublin Specific Plan EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (City Council Resolution No. 53-93) for these significant and unavoidable
impacts.
The EIR further concluded that the significant impacts related to the following intersections
would be reduced to level of insignificance under Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout
scenarios:
Dougherty Road with Dublin Boulevard (IM 3.3/F) (#2)
Hacienda Drive with the I-580 eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/G) (#13)
Tassajara Road with the I-580 westbound ramps (IM 3.3/H) (#17)
4 The intersection numbers of the Supplemental EIR are provided for reference if applicable.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 59
Airway Boulevard with Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway (IM 3.3/J)
Airway Boulevard with the I-580 westbound ramps (IM 3.3/K)
Tassajara Road with Fallon Road (IM 3.3/N)
Tassajara Road with Gleason Road (IM 3.3/N)
Tassajara Road with the Transit Spine (IM 3.3/N)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on intersection operations:
The Project shall contribute a proportionate share towards the costs of the
improvements as determined by a regional transportation study. (MM 3.3/6.0, MM
3.3/7.0, MM 3.3/9.0, MM 3.3/10.0, MM 3.3/11.0, MM 3.3/12.0, MM3.3/14.0 )
Transit. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the significant impacts related to introduction of
significant development in an area not served by public transit would be reduced to level of
insignificance. (IM 3.3/O)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on transit:
The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the capital and operating costs
of transit service extensions. (IM 3.3/15.2)
Pedestrians and Bicycles. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the potentially significant
impact related to street crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists would be reduced to level of
insignificance. (IM 3.3/P)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on street crossing for pedestrians and
bicyclists:
Provide a Class I paved bicycle/pedestrian path parallel to Tassajara Creek. (IM
3.3/16.0)
Locate pedestrian and bicycle paths so that their crossings of major arterial streets
coincide with signalized street intersections, provide a signalized pedestrian and
bicycle crossing of the major street. (IM 3.3/16.1)
IKEA SEIR. This Supplemental EIR identified the following supplemental impacts and contained
the following the supplemental mitigation measures.
• Supplemental Impact TRA-1 found a potentially significant supplemental impact at key
intersections near the project site, including the Martinelli Way/Hacienda Drive
intersection, the I-580 eastbound off-ramps/Hacienda Drive intersection, the I-580
westbound ramps/Hacienda Drive intersection and the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty
Road intersection. With construction of future roadway improvements included in the
Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Program and Capital Improvement Budget,
these impacts were found to be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 60
• Supplemental Impact TRA-2 identified cumulative impacts at study area intersections,
which are identified above. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-2
required payment of fair share fees to fund the construction of a southbound-to-
westbound right-turn lane at the Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road intersection reduced this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
• Supplemental Impact TRA-3 found that project related trips would add more vehicles to
already congested local freeway segments. Mitigation for this impact was found to be
infeasible since freeway improvements are not under the jurisdiction of the City of
Dublin, although the project developer was required to pay Tri-Valley Transportation
Development fees, of which a portion is directed toward freeway improvements.
The current project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures from previous
CEQA documents
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This supplemental analysis is intended to identify changes in impacts and mitigation measures
due to the land use modifications and other changes. The methodologies and approach are
described below.
Analysis Methodology. Level of service is a qualitative measure that describes operational
conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. The
level of service generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel
time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The
operational levels of service (LOS) are given letter designations from “A” to “F,” with “A”
representing the best operating conditions (free-flow) and “F” the worst (severely congested flow
with high delays). Intersections generally are the capacity-controlling locations with respect to
traffic operations on arterial and collector streets.
Signalized Intersections. Signalized intersection analyses were conducted using the operational
methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2000, Chapters 10 and 16). It was conducted using Synchro analysis software
tool. The HCM procedure calculates an average controlled delay per vehicle at a signalized
intersection, and assigns a level of service designation based upon the delay. Delay is a complex
measure and is dependent upon a number of variables, including the number of vehicles in the
traffic stream. It is also dependent on the quality of signal progression, the signal cycle length,
and the “green” ratio for each approach or lane group. Table 4.2-2 provides descriptions of the
level of service and the corresponding ranges of delays for signalized intersections.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 61
Table 4.2-2. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definition
Level of
Service Description of Traffic Conditions
Average Delay
Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A Free flowing. Most vehicles do not have to stop. 10.0
B Minimal delays. Some vehicles have to stop, although waits are not
bothersome. >10.0 and 20.0
C Acceptable delays. Significant numbers of vehicles have to stop because of
steady, high traffic volumes. Still, many pass without stopping. >20.0 and 35.0
D
Tolerable delays. Many vehicles have to stop. Drivers are aware of heavier
traffic. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues begin
to form, often on more than one approach.
>35.0 and 55.0
E Significant delays. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light.
Long queues form, sometimes on several approaches. >55.0 and 80.0
F
Excessive delays. Intersection is jammed. Many cars have to wait through
more than one red light, or more than 60 seconds. Traffic may back up into
“up-stream” intersections.
>80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
Queues. Queue analyses were conducted for 95th percentile left-turn queues using Synchro
analysis software tool. The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th
percentile traffic volumes. This condition is not typically experienced by an average driver.
When multiple lanes are provided, the queue length for the lane with the highest queue was
reported.
Metropolitan Transportation System Arterial and Freeway Segments. Levels of service for
roadway segments analyzed using the Florida Department of Transportation level of service
methodology, which provides a planning level analysis based on Transportation Research
Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. As a planning level analysis, the level of service is
based on forecasts of traffic and assumptions for roadway and signalization control conditions,
such as facility type (freeway, and arterial classification), speeds, capacity and number of lanes.
The traffic forecasts for the MTS analysis were estimated based on the latest Alameda
Countywide Travel Demand Model. Trips generated by land use on the project site assumed in
the 2020 and 2035 models were first removed from the MTS arterial and freeway segments; then
volumes generated by the proposed project were added to derive the estimated volumes on the
segments. The removal and addition of the trips generated by the project site on MTS arterial and
freeway segments was perform using Traffix software.
Routes of Regional Significance Arterial Segments. Arterial level of service was conducted for
Routes of Regional Significance based on methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000, Chapter 15) using Synchro
software tool. The HCM procedure calculates an average through-vehicle travel speed for the
arterial segment and assigns a level of service designation based upon the speed. The level of
service criteria is shown in Table 4.2-3.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 62
Table 4.2-3. Arterial Level of Service Definition
Urban Street Class
I II III IV
Typical Free Flow
Speed 50 mi/hr 40 mi/hr 35 mi/hr 30 mi/hr
Level of Service Average Travel Speed (miles/hr)
A >42 >35 >30 >25
B >34-42 >28-35 >24-30 >19-25
C >27-34 >22-28 >18-24 >13-19
D >21-27 >17-22 >14-18 >9-13
E >16-21 >13-17 >10+14 >7-9
F <= 16 <= 13 <= 10 <= 7
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
Analysis Approach. Transportation impact analysis was performed for Existing conditions,
Short-Term (Year 2020) Cumulative conditions, and Long-Term (Year 2035) Cumulative
conditions. Full development of the proposed project is assumed to occur under each project
scenario. The analysis primarily built upon a set of Synchro traffic analysis files prepared for The
Village development by TJKM Consultants in August 2013 and the updated City of Dublin’s
Citywide Travel Demand Model files prepared for the Dublin Crossing development by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants, Inc. The Synchro files contain intersection volume and lane
geometry data used in The Village project analysis for the Existing, Short-Term Cumulative, and
Long-Term Cumulative conditions and the model files contain travel demand forecasting runs
for Year 2011 base year, Year 2020 and Year 2035 future years. The analysis approach is
detailed below.
Existing Conditions. The existing volumes and lane geometries were primarily compiled from
The Village project’s Synchro files and the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Dublin Crossing DEIR). Peak hour turning movement volumes for the Glynnis
Rose Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection was collected for this study. All peak hour
volumes for the study intersections were collected in 2012 and 2013.
The new external trips generated by the proposed project were distributed based on the select
zone analysis and assigned onto the roadway network using Traffix software. The project trips at
each of the study intersections were then added to existing volumes to derive the intersection
volumes for the Existing plus Project scenario. The existing lane geometries and intersection
turning movement volumes for the Existing No Project scenario and the Existing plus Project
scenario are provided in Appendix B (See SEIR Appendix 8.6).
Short-Term Cumulative (Year 2020) Conditions. For the 22 study intersections that are included
in The Village project, the volumes and lane geometries of the Short-Term Cumulative plus The
Village project scenario are assumed to be the same as those of the Short-Term Cumulative No
Project scenario of the proposed project.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 63
For the remaining three intersections, the 2020 No Project volumes were developed by adding
The Village project trips to the future background volumes. The future background volumes
were based on the citywide model as applied in the Dublin Crossing EIR.
The proposed project trips were added to the Short-Term Cumulative No Project volumes to
derive the intersection volumes for the Short-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario.
The following improvements are assumed in the analysis under Short-Term Cumulative
conditions:
City of Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program – Roadway Improvements:
I-580 westbound: Addition of a westbound auxiliary lane along I-580 between Fallon
Road and Tassajara Road
I-580 westbound: Addition of a westbound HOV/Express lane along I-580 between
Greenville Road and San Ramon Road
Dublin Crossing project5:
Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway/D Street intersection (#7)6: Construct a
separate left turn lane and a shared through-right lane on southbound D Street/Iron Horse
Parkway, and a westbound right turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane (within the
existing median) on Dublin Boulevard, along with the necessary signal modifications to
accommodate the new north leg of the intersection
Arnold Road and Central Parkway intersection (#19): Construct a separate left turn lane
and a shared through-right lane on eastbound Central Parkway, and a northbound left turn
lane on Arnold Road, along with the necessary signal modifications to accommodate the
new west leg of the intersection.
The Village project7:
Martinelli Way and Project Driveway intersection (#23): Construct a new north leg at
Martinelli Way between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive as The Village project’s south
project access driveway. The project would also make the necessary signal modifications
to accommodate the new southbound, eastbound left-turn and westbound right-turn
movements.
5 These improvements would be constructed as a part of the Dublin Crossing project by Year 2020. If the Dublin
Crossing project is not constructed by Year 2020, the projected volumes at the intersections would be reduced and
the improvements would likely not be required since these improvements are project-specific and would not be
needed without the project. In addition, The Green project would not add traffic to those movements, e.g., eastbound
left and westbound right on Dublin Boulevard, that provide access to the Dublin Crossing project.
6 The intersection numbers of the Supplemental EIR are provided for reference if applicable.
7 These improvements would be constructed as a part of The Village project by Year 2020. If The Village project is
not constructed by Year 2020, these improvements, which provide access to The Village, would not be needed.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 64
The lane geometries and intersection turning movement volumes for the Short-Term Cumulative
No Project scenario and the Short-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario are provided in
Appendix B of Appendix 8.6.
Long-Term Cumulative (Year 2035) Conditions. For the 22 study intersections that are included
in The Village project, the volumes and lane geometries of the Long-Term Cumulative plus The
Village project scenario are assumed to be the same as those of the Long-Term Cumulative No
Project scenario of the proposed project.
For the remaining three intersections, the 2035 No Project volumes were developed by adding
The Village project trips to the future background volumes. The future background volumes
were based on the citywide model as applied in the Dublin Crossing EIR.
The proposed project trips were added to the Long-Term Cumulative No Project volumes to
derive the intersection volumes for the Long-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario.
An additional step was required to estimate the intersection volumes for the Long-Term
Cumulative plus Project scenario. As discussed under the Trip Generation section, the city traffic
model assumed land uses on the project site in 2035. Trips generated by the assumed land uses
were removed first before the trips generated by the proposed project were added to the study
intersections. This resulted in a net change in vehicle trips due to the proposed project relative to
the previously assumed land use at the site.
In addition to those identified under Short-Term Cumulative conditions, the following
improvements are assumed under Long-Term Cumulative conditions:
City of Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program – Roadway Improvements:
Tassajara Road: Widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes between Fallon Road and
Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road: Widening of Tassajara Road to eight lanes between Dublin
Boulevard and I-580 westbound ramps
Dublin Boulevard : Dublin Boulevard six lane extension, from Fallon Road to Airway
Boulevard
Arnold Road: Widening Arnold Road to four lanes from Dublin Blvd to Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive: Widening Hacienda Drive to six lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive: Widening Hacienda Drive to four lanes from Central Parkway to
Gleason Road
Scarlett Drive: Extend/Widen Scarlett Drive to four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Dougherty Road
City of Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program – Intersection Improvements:
Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive (#1): Adding one southbound through lane and
converting the existing northbound right-turn lane to a shared through-right turn lane on
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 65
Dougherty Road; and adding two westbound right-turn lanes and converting the existing
shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through lane.
Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive (#5): Constructing two southbound left-turn lanes
and one shared through-right lane for the new Scarlett Drive extension; converting the
existing northbound right-turn lane to a shared through-right lane on Scarlett Drive; and
adding an exclusive westbound right-turn lane.
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8): Adding a southbound right turn lane and
converting the existing shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through lane on
Arnold Road; and adding an eastbound left turn lane on Dublin Boulevard and
corresponding northbound receiving lane.
Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10): Converting an existing northbound right-
turn lane to a through lane on Hacienda Drive; and adding a westbound right turn lane
and converting the existing shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through lane on
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way/Hacienda Crossings (#11): Removing the existing
raised delineators to allow for three northbound left-turn lanes on Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway (#20): Adding a southbound through lane;
converting the existing northbound shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through
lane; and adding a northbound right-turn trap lane from the Dublin Boulevard intersection
Hacienda Drive and I-580 EB Ramps (#13): Adding a northbound through lane on
Hacienda Drive and an additional eastbound left-turn lane on the I-580 eastbound off-
ramp
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard(#16): Adding two northbound through lanes on
Tassajara Road, an eastbound through lane on Dublin Boulevard, and a westbound right
turn lane and a through lane; and converting the existing shared through-right turn lane a
through lane
Tassajara Road and I-580 WB Ramps (#17): Adding a northbound through lane on
Tassajara Road.
City of Pleasanton Intersection Improvements:
Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps (#18): Adding a southbound left-turn lane on Santa
Rita Road
The future lane geometries and intersection turning movement volumes for the Long-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario and the Long-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario are
presented in Appendix B (see SEIR Appendix 8.6).
Project Characteristics. The proposed project is a mixed-use development located at the
southwest quadrant of the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection. Its land uses are
different from those assumed on the project site in the Eastern Dublin EIR. For the purpose of
this analysis, the proposed project consists of 35,000 square feet of restaurant space, 5,000
square feet of other retail space, 50 single family detached dwelling units, 260 townhouse units,
and 90 condominium units (400 units total). The traffic impacts of this product mix are more
intensive than the impacts of 400 condominium and townhome units, so although the product
type mix changed to not include any single family detached dwelling units, the analysis was not
changed because it was known that impacts identified would be “worst case” scenario. The
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 66
project site also contains 2.25 acres of open plaza and green space that would serve visitors and
residents of the project. One vehicular access is provided on Martinelli Drive aligned with the
future access of The Village development. Another vehicular driveway is provided on Arnold
Drive. The turning movement at this secondary access is assumed to be restricted to right turns
only.
Project Trip Generation. The trip generation of the proposed project is based upon information
compiled by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the latest Trip Generation Manual and
User’s Guide and Handbook (9th Edition). It is assumed all 35,000 square-feet of restaurant
space would comprise of High Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurants (ITE Code 932). This
assumption yields higher trip generation than other types of non-fast food restaurants. Therefore,
this analysis can accommodate a reasonable mix of restaurants that would ultimately be
developed. The project would generate 560 trips during the AM peak hour and 405 trips during
the PM peak hour as presented in Table 4.2-4.
Table 4.2-4. Project Trip Generation
Land Use
Category Amount ITE Code Weekday^ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rate
Restaurants* 932 127.15 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85
Other Retail 820 193.80 3.10 1.90 5.00 7.78 8.42 16.20
Condo/Townhouse 230 5.47 0.07 0.33 0.40 0.32 0.16 0.48
Single Family Detached 210 11.10 0.23 0.68 0.90 0.71 0.41 1.12
Trip Generation
Restaurants* 21.0 ksf 932 2,670 125 102 227 124 83 207
Restaurants* 14.0 ksf 932 1,780 83 68 151 83 55 138
Other Retail 5.0 ksf 820 969 16 10 25 39 42 81
Condo/Townhouse 350 du 230 1,913 24 117 141 113 55 168
Single Family 50 du 210 555 11 34 45 35 21 56
Total Project Trips 7,887 259 331 589 394 256 650
Internal Trip Reduction -1,084 -44 -44 -87
Walk Trip to BART Reduction (5%) -340 -13 -17 -29 -18 -11 -28
New External Trips before Pass-by Reduction 6,463 246 314 560 333 201 535
Pass-By Trips
High Turn Over Restaurant
(5% Weekday; 35% PM) -200 -54 -54 -108
Other Retail (5% Weekday; 30% PM) -44 -11 -11 -22
New External Trips 6,219 246 314 560 267 136 405
Approved Use Trips per Year 2035 Dublin
Model 8,075 184 71 255 228 307 535
Year 2035 Cumulative Net Additional Trips -1,856 62 243 305 39 -171 -130
Note:
* Based on "High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant" land use category from ITE
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition and User's Guide and Handbook
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 67
There are two line items in the table for restaurants representing the two distinct restaurant
spaces. It is assumed that each space would contain a number of different restaurants. The trip
generation was calculated using either weighted average rate or regression equation based on
recommended procedures in the Trip Generation Handbook. Specifically, trip generation for the
restaurant land use were based on average rates; while trip generation for other retail use (ITE
820 Shopping Center), condominiums and townhouses (ITE 230 Residential Condominium/
Townhouse) and single family homes (ITE 210 Single-Family Detached Housing) were
calculated using equations. Regardless of the use of rates or equations, the resulting trip
generation rates are presented in Table 4.2-4.
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 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.
Due to the project site’s close proximity to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, adjustments
were made to account for walk trips between the project and the station. Based upon City staff’s
local knowledge, a five-percent trip reduction was assumed for all land use types during all time
periods.
After adjusting for internal trips and BART walk trips, adjustments were made to account for
pass-by trips to the restaurant establishments and other retail land uses. Pass-by trips are trips
that are already in the existing traffic stream that passes by the site and that would be attracted to
the project when it is completed. These trips are included in the total count of traffic generated
by the project and are included in the project driveway volumes, but are not included as new trips
at intersections outside of the influence of the project driveways. Since pass-by vehicles on
Hacienda Drive have to divert onto Martinelli Way to access the project, the Hacienda Drive and
Martinelli Way intersection is considered to be within the influence of the project driveways and
is affected by pass-by trips.
The amount of a project's pass-by trips varies by type of land uses and the magnitude of existing
traffic on the adjacent streets. The pass-by trips assumptions were derived from guidelines in
ITE’s Trip Generation Manual User’s Guide and Handbook. However, in collaboration with the
City, modifications were made to reflect local conditions. Both modifications, from ITE average
of 43 percent to 35 percent for restaurants and from 34 percent to 30 percent for other retail uses,
were downward reductions; reflecting a consistently conservative approach in this analysis.
Table 4.2- indicates the number of trips projected to be generated by land uses assumed on the
project site by Year 2035 in the Dublin Citywide Travel Demand Model. The assumed land uses
primarily consist of office and commercial uses. The net difference in trips that would be
generated by the proposed project is also provided. The proposed project would result in net
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 68
reductions of daily and PM peak hour trips but a net increase of AM peak hour trips under the
Long Term Cumulative conditions.
Project Trip Distribution. The distribution of trips associated with the project site was derived
from the Dublin Citywide travel demand model as well as trip distribution information for The
Village at Dublin (also known as Site 16A, “Persimmon Place”) project8, a 167,200-square-foot
retail shopping center located in the southwest quadrant of the Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive
intersection.
To estimate the trip distribution for retail and service uses including restaurants, the traffic
analysis zone within which the project is located was isolated and its peak hour trips were
assigned to the network using Year 2035 future year model. From this select zone assignment,
the distributions of trips for retail/service uses in both AM and PM peak hours were estimated.
The distribution percentages were then compared to those of The Village project and adjusted
based on project land use, the study area, and comments from City staff.
To estimate the trip distribution for residential land use, the same select zone process was
followed for the zone at the northeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. This zone
serves as a proxy for the project site as it is the nearest zone where residential housing is the
primary use. The estimated trip distribution percentages for residential and retail/service uses to
and from selected gateways are graphically presented in Exhibit 4.2-2 and shown in Table 4.2-5
below.
Table 4.2-5. Project Trip Distribution
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
To/From
Residential
(%)
Retail/
Service
(%)
Residential
(%)
Retail/
Service
(%)
Interstate 580 west of Dougherty/Hopyard Interchange 25 5 20 5
Interstate 580 east of Santa Rita/Tassajara Interchange 15 10 11 10
Dublin Blvd. west of Dougherty Rd. 20 10 13 12
Dublin Blvd. east of Tassajara Rd. 1 10 2 12
Hacienda Dr. north of Central Pkwy. 1 3 3 3
Hacienda Dr south of Owens Dr 9 10 10 10
Tassajara Rd north of Central Pkwy 1 7 1 6
Santa Rita Rd south of Pimlico Dr 10 13 10 10
Central Pkwy east of Tassajara Rd 3 3 5 2
Dougherty Rd north of Scarlett Dr 4 10 5 10
Owens Dr southeast of Hacienda Dr 5 12 12 12
Martinelli Wy west of Arnold Rd 5 4 5 5
Hacienda Crossing 1 3 3 3
Total 100 100 100 100
8 TJKM Consultants, “Trip Generation and Distribution for Traffic Impact Study of the Proposed Retail Development at Site
16A,” Technical memorandum to Jerry Haag. January 23, 2013.
The Green Draft Supplimental EIR December 2013
¯
Figure4.4-2
H:\projfile\13410 - Dublin Greens Supplemental EIR\GIS\TripDistribution.mxd - bkorporaal - 4:12 PM
12/23/2013
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Trip DistributionThe GreenDublin, California
SITE
Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd
Arnold Rd
Arnold Rd
Martinelli Way
Dougherty Blvd
Scarlett Dr
Owens Dr
Hacienda Crossing
Central Pkwy
Central Pkwy
Tassajara
Rd
Hacienda Dr
Owens Dr
Dublin Blvd
4% 10%(5%) (10%)3% (5%)
3% (2%)
5% (5%)
4% (5%)
1% (3%)
3% (3%)
Hacienda Dr
1% 7%(1%) (6%)1% 3%(3%) (3%)
1% (2%)
10% (12%)
25% (20%)
5% (5%)15% (11%)
10% (10%)§¨¦I-580 §¨¦I-580
Legend
Residential AM% (PM%)
Retail/Services AM% (PM%)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 70
Project Trip Assignment. Project trips were assigned onto the roadway network based on
assumed project access points, shortest paths, and availability of alternate paths. The assignments
were modified for the Long Term Cumulative scenario to account for new roadways projected to
be completed by Year 2035 as described under the Analysis Approach section.
The intersection turning movement volumes generated by the project are provided in Part B of
SEIR Appendix 8.6.
Standards of Significance. In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to
determine whether they will result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. In this
analysis, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would have effects described
below. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify specific standards for queuing, Routes of
Regional Significance, public transit, pedestrian circulation, bicycle facilities and Complete
Street Policy. Further, the standards for the remaining criteria have also been modified. The
proposed project would have a significant supplemental impact if the following impacts have the
potential to occur but were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, or are substantially more
severe than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR requiring additional mitigations.
City of Dublin Intersections. Project impact is considered to be significant if:
The project traffic causes the intersection operations to degrade from an acceptable LOS
D or better under no project conditions to LOS E or worse under project conditions; or
If the intersection is already operating below an acceptable threshold (i.e. at LOS E or
LOS F) under no project conditions and the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips to the
intersection.
City of Pleasanton Intersections. Project impact is considered to be significant if:
The project traffic causes the intersection operations to degrade from an acceptable LOS
D or better under no project conditions to LOS E or worse under project conditions; or
If the intersection is already operating below an acceptable threshold (i.e. at LOS E or
LOS F) under no project conditions, the project adds 10 or more peak hour trips to the
intersection.
The City of Pleasanton has identified a few exceptions to the LOS standard for the City of
Pleasanton gateway intersections9. These intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if there is
no reasonable mitigation possible or if the necessary mitigation conflict with other goals and
policies of the City of Pleasanton.
Queuing. Project impact would be considered significant if:
9 The following study intersections are included as Pleasanton’s gateway intersections: I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard
Road, I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty/Hopyard Road; I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr; I-580 Eastbound
Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr; I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara/Santa Rita Rd; I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita
Rd/Pimlico Drive; and Ownes Drive & Hacienda Dr.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 71
For the study intersections operating at unacceptable level of service, or at the upper
portion of the LOS D delay range (average intersection delay of 45 to 55 seconds):
o the project traffic causes the 95th percentile queue in a left turn pocket to extend
beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into
adjacent traffic lanes that operate (i.e., move) separately from the left turn lane; or
o If the 95th percentile queue already exceeds that turn pocket length under no
project conditions, the project traffic lengthens the queue by 25 feet or more.
MTS Arterial and Freeway Segments. Project impact would be considered significant if:
The project traffic cause a MTS network segment to fall from an acceptable LOS E
(roadway segment, freeway segment, or freeway ramp v/c ratio of 0.99 or less) under no
project conditions to an unacceptable LOS F (v/c of 1.00 or more); or,
If a segment is already operating at LOS F in the No Project case, the v/c ratio increases
by more than 0.02 (for example, from 1.03 to 1.06).
Routes of Regional Significance. Project impact would be significant if:
The project traffic causes an arterial segment to degrade below LOS D based on HCM
2000 Methodology during a peak hour; or
If an arterial were already at LOS E or worse, the project would cause the
volume/capacity ratio to increase by 0.02 or more.
Public Transit. Project impact would be significant if:
The demand for public transit service increases above that which local transit operators or
agencies could accommodate; or
The project conflicts with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation; or
The project disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to
accommodate transit demand.
Bicycle Facilities. Project impact would be significant if:
The project disrupts existing bicycle facilities or interferes with planned bicycle facilities,
which includes failure to dedicate right-of-way for planned on- and off-street bicycle
facilities included in an adopted Bicycle Master Plan or to contribute toward construction
of planned bicycle facilities along the project’s frontages; or
The project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans,
guidelines, policies or standards; or, a project fails to provide on-site parking for bicycles
as required by the City’s municipal codes.
Pedestrian Circulation. Project impact would be significant if:
The project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting pedestrians.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 72
Complete Streets Policy. Project impact would be significant if:
The project conflicts with the City of Dublin’s Complete Streets Policy, including public
transit and pedestrian and bicycle circulation accommodations.
Traffic Safety. Project impact would be significant if:
The project includes a project design feature, such as a sharp curve or potentially
hazardous intersection that would not be consistent with City of Dublin engineering
design standards or standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) or Caltrans.
Supplemental Impacts to Intersections. Twenty-five signalized intersections in the project
vicinity were selected for analysis. Nine of these intersections were analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR.10 The results of the analysis under Existing, Short-Term Cumulative and Long-Term
Cumulative conditions are presented in this section. Detailed worksheets are included in
Appendix C of SEIR Appendix 8.6.
Existing Conditions. The intersection level of service results for Existing and Existing plus
Project scenarios are summarized in Table 4.2-6. The results indicate that all but one of the study
intersections would operate within acceptable LOS standards during both peak hours with the
addition of project traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection would degrade to
substandard level in the AM peak hour.
With the addition of project traffic, the average delays at some intersections are lower than those
under the No Project scenario. The primary reason for such occurrences is that the HCM
methodology used for this operations analysis is based on average delay per vehicle at the
intersection. Therefore, under certain circumstances, while the total volume increases, the
additional vehicles at a particular movement or movements that experience less delay would
result in a lower intersection average delay per vehicle. For example, if the project adds trips to a
through movement that has lower delay than most of the other traffic movements, the overall
intersection average delay would decrease.
Table 4.2-6. Intersection Level of Services - Existing Conditions
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Existing no
Proj Existing plus Proj
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Dougherty Rd & Scarlett Dr AM 8.9 A 9.1 A
PM 11.2 B 11.6 B
2 Dougherty Rd & Dublin Blvd AM 39.1 D 37.6 D
PM 42.6 D 43.7 D
3 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty Rd^ AM 10.9 B 10.9 B
10 Intersections studied in both the Eastern Dublin EIR and The Green Draft SEIR are: Dougherty Rd/Dublin Blvd (#2),
Dougherty Rd/I-580 westbound ramps (#3), Hopyard Rd/I-580 eastbound ramps (#4), Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd (#10), Hacienda
Dr/I-580 Westbound off-ramp (#12), Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp (#13), Tassajara Rd/Dublin Blvd (#16),
Tassajara Rd/I-580 westbound off ramp (#17), and Tassajara Rd/I-580 eastbound off ramp (#18).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 73
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Existing no
Proj Existing plus Proj
Delay LOS Delay LOS
PM 14.9 B 15.0 B
4 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard Rd^ AM 46.9 D 46.9 D
PM 19.2 B 19.2 B
5 Dublin Blvd & Scarlett Dr AM 4.7 A 4.8 A
PM 10.3 B 10.5 B
6 Dublin Blvd & Camp Parks Blvd AM 16.7 B 16.3 B
PM 10.6 B 11.1 B
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron Horse Pkwy AM 9.3 A 9.6 A
PM 10.1 B 9.8 A
8 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd AM 48.5 D 55.8 E
PM 17.6 B 20.6 C
9 Dublin Blvd & Sybase Dr AM 1.5 A 1.4 A
PM 2.0 A 2.3 A
10 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr AM 35.3 D 36.7 D
PM 29.2 C 30.0 C
11 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way AM 14.0 B 18.4 B
PM 24.4 C 26.2 C
12 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 7.0 A 7.2 A
PM 8.5 A 9.5 A
13 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 14.6 B 14.8 B
PM 12.0 B 13.0 B
14 Dublin Blvd & Hibernia Dr AM 18.0 B 17.7 B
PM 24.1 C 24.4 C
15 Dublin Blvd & Myrtle Dr AM 10.4 B 9.9 A
PM 14.4 B 14.1 B
16 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd AM 27.0 C 27.4 C
PM 32.7 C 33.5 C
17 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara Rd^ AM 9.0 A 9.0 A
PM 9.4 A 9.5 A
18 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita Rd^ AM 27.4 C 27.3 C
PM 34.8 C 34.7 C
19 Central Pkwy & Arnold Rd AM 4.3 A 4.3 A
PM 4.6 A 4.7 A
20 Central Pkwy & Hacienda Dr AM 15.3 B 16.7 B
PM 15.8 B 17.3 B
21 Martinelli Way & Arnold Rd AM 9.1 A 8.8 A
PM 6.7 A 6.8 A
22 Central Pkwy & Tassajara Rd AM 12.3 B 12.4 B
PM 11.4 B 11.4 B
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 74
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Existing no
Proj Existing plus Proj
Delay LOS Delay LOS
23 Martinelli Way & Project Drwy AM Future
Intersection
13.0 B
PM 29.1 C
24 Dublin Blvd & Glynnis Rose Dr AM 18.3 B 18.9 B
PM 18.7 B 19.0 B
25 Owens Dr & Hacienda Dr^ AM 12.8 B 14.2 B
PM 26.3 C 28.0 C
Notes:
^ denotes intersections under City of Pleasanton jurisdictions.
LOS = level of service
Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2013.
Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road Intersection impact. Construction of the project would result in
an impact at the intersection identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-1 (impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Arnold Rd. intersection). 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
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-1 (impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Arnold Rd.
intersection). 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.
Upon implementation of the, the operations would improve to LOS D in the AM peak hour and
LOS B in the PM peak hour and the project impact would be less-than-significant. The required
improvements are identified in the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program for
implementation in 2035, but would be required earlier due to this project. Therefore, the project
shall make a fair share contribution toward these improvements. Since the improvement is
required prior to 2035, the project would pay for the full cost of this improvement prior to the
issuance of the first building permit and the costs of the improvement would be credited towards
the TIF payment requirement for the development.
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. The intersection level of service results for Short-Term
Cumulative and Short-Term Cumulative plus Project scenarios are summarized in Table 4.2-7.
The results indicate that all study intersections in the AM peak hour and all but three
intersections in the PM peak hour would operate within acceptable LOS standards under Short-
Term Cumulative plus Project scenario.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 75
Table 4.2-7. Intersection Level of Services – Short-Term Cumulative Conditions
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Short-Term no
Proj
Short-Term
plus Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Dougherty Rd & Scarlett Dr AM 23.3 C 23.8 C
PM 24.6 C 25.3 C
2 Dougherty Rd & Dublin Blvd AM 43.0 D 44.1 D
PM 56.0 E 58.0 E 133
3 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty
Rd^
AM 11.5 B 11.5 B
PM 13.2 B 13.2 B
4 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard Rd^ AM 23.8 C 23.8 C
PM 33.4 C 33.6 C
5 Dublin Blvd & Scarlett Dr AM 12.8 B 13.2 B
PM 14.9 B 15.5 B
6 Dublin Blvd & Camp Parks Blvd AM 31.3 C 31.4 C
PM 23.0 C 23.5 C
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron Horse Pkwy AM 16.3 B 15.8 B
PM 22.2 C 23.0 C
8 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd AM 41.0 D 49.9 D
PM 47.4 D 48.9 D
9 Dublin Blvd & Sybase Dr AM 8.9 A 9.3 A
PM 9.9 A 9.9 A
10 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr AM 26.7 C 27.0 C
PM 54.7 D 62.4 E
11 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way AM 19.8 B 22.4 C
PM 31.5 C 34.5 C
12 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 7.1 A 7.3 A
PM 6.4 A 6.9 A
13 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 13.0 B 13.2 B
PM 12.8 B 13.6 B
14 Dublin Blvd & Hibernia Dr AM 13.3 B 13.3 B
PM 21.3 C 21.2 C
15 Dublin Blvd & Myrtle Dr AM 10.7 B 10.7 B
PM 18.8 B 18.7 B
16 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd AM 41.3 D 41.9 D
PM 61.2 E 62.6 E 71
17 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara Rd^ AM 10.0 A 10.0 B
PM 13.4 B 13.5 B
18 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita Rd^ AM 30.7 C 31.1 C
PM 30.6 C 31.0 C
19 Central Pkwy & Arnold Rd AM 7.8 A 7.8 A
PM 6.3 A 6.3 A
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 76
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Short-Term no
Proj
Short-Term
plus Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
20 Central Pkwy & Hacienda Dr AM 19.1 B 19.4 B
PM 19.2 B 20.2 C
21 Martinelli Way & Arnold Rd AM 10.4 B 10.2 B
PM 9.0 A 8.8 A
22 Central Pkwy & Tassajara Rd AM 19.2 B 19.7 B
PM 27.3 C 27.8 C
23 Martinelli Way & Project Drwy AM 13.1 B 13.3 B
PM 12.5 B 15.1 B
24 Dublin Blvd & Glynnis Rose Dr AM 14.8 B 14.6 B
PM 24.6 C 24.7 C
25 Owens Dr & Hacienda Dr^ AM 14.0 B 14.2 B
PM 46.9 D 47.9 D
Notes:
^ denotes intersections under City of Pleasanton jurisdictions.
LOS = Level of service.
Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds
Bold font denotes sub-standard operations
Highlight indicates significant impact
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2013.
The Dublin Boulevard intersections of Dougherty Road (#2) and Tassajara Road (#16) would
already experience sub-standard operations at LOS E without the proposed project. Because the
project would add more than 50 trips to each of these intersections in the PM peak hour, the
project impacts are considered to be cumulatively significant.
Project generated traffic would cause the operations at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive (#10) to degrade from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the
project impact is considered to be significant.
As discussed under the Existing Conditions, the reason why the average delays at some
intersections with the project-added traffic are lower than those under the No Project scenario is
primarily due to the HCM methodology used for the analysis.
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Intersection short-term cumulative impact. Construction of
the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the short-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-2 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Dougherty
Rd. intersection during the PM peak period). The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
(#2) 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 (significant supplemental impact
remains significant and unavoidable).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 77
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection during the PM peak period). 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.
Upon implementation of the above supplemental mitigation measure, the operations would
improve to LOS D in both peak hours and the project impact would be less-than-significant.
However, the mitigation measures would require widening of the east leg of the intersection to
accommodate the additional receiving lane. Such widening of Dublin Boulevard might not be
feasible due to right-of-way constraints. Further, it would result in secondary impact to
pedestrians as the longer crossing distance would increase the length of time pedestrians are
exposed to traffic. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternative Mitigation Measure 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.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 78
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.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve intersection operations can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive Intersection short-term cumulative impact. Construction of
the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the short-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-3 (short-term cumulative impacts at Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr.
intersection). 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 (significant supplemental impact remains significant and
unavoidable).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-3 (short-term cumulative impacts at Dublin
Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection). 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.
While this intersection is part of the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program, the TIF
improvement would not adequately lessen the project impact.
Upon implementation of the supplemental mitigation measure, the operations would improve to
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour and the project impact would be
less-than-significant. However, the mitigation measures would require removal/modification of
the curb extension at the southeast corner of the intersection and relocating the existing bike lane
to accommodate the additional receiving lane, which would adversely impact pedestrians by
increasing the crossing distance and exposure to traffic and bicyclists by increasing conflict at
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 79
downstream driveway. Therefore, this mitigation measure may be infeasible and the project
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
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 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, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve intersection operations can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road Intersection short-term cumulative impact. Construction of the
project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the short-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-4 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Tassajara
Rd. intersection). The Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (#16) 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 (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-4 (short--term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Tassajara Rd. intersection). 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.
Upon implementation of the above supplemental measure, the operation would improve to LOS
D.
The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the City’s Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) program as part of the widening of Dublin Boulevard to six through lanes at this
location. The Project shall make a fair share contribution toward these improvements. The TIF
fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Upon the payment, the project
impact would be less-than-significant.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. The intersection level of service results for Long-Term
Cumulative and Long-Term Cumulative plus Project scenarios are summarized in Table 4.2-8.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 80
The results indicate the 12 intersections would operate below acceptable standards under Long-
Term Cumulative No Project and plus Project scenarios. However, the impact at only the Dublin
Boulevard Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection is considered to be cumulatively significant because
the project would add 50 or more trips to this Dublin intersection. Therefore, the impact is not
considered to be significant. This reduction in average intersection delay could be attributed to
two factors. The project would add trips to the southbound through movement, which in general
experiences lower delay than other movements at the intersection. As explained under the
Existing Conditions section, when trips are added to a movement that experience less delay, the
result may be a reduction in the average intersection delay per vehicle. Furthermore, because
trips that were projected to be generated by land uses assumed on the project site by the Citywide
Model were first removed from the roadway network, the net traffic volume on the southbound
left-turn movement with the addition of the project is lower than that of the No Project scenario.
Because this movement would require the most green time from the traffic signal, any volume
reduction would again reduce the average intersection delay.
Table 4.2-8. Intersection Level of Services – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Long-Term no
Proj
Long-Term plus
Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Dougherty Rd & Scarlett Dr AM 28.8 C 29.3 C
PM 112.1 F 113.8 F 15
2 Dougherty Rd & Dublin Blvd AM 48.7 D 50.4 D
PM 77.3 E 78.4 E 15
3 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty
Rd^
AM 12.4 B 12.4 B
PM 14.3 B 14.3 B
4 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard Rd^ AM 34.7 C 34.7 C
PM 21.1 C 21.1 C
5 Dublin Blvd & Scarlett Dr AM 79.0 E 82.9 F 82
PM 76.7 E 78.5 E 26
6 Dublin Blvd & Camp Parks Blvd AM 24.9 C 27.4 C
PM 73.1 E 73.1 E 33
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron Horse Pkwy AM 21.5 C 23.8 C
PM 181.2 F 183.2 F 27
8 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd AM 53.0 D 59.9 E
PM 70.8 E 68.5 E 17
9 Dublin Blvd & Sybase Dr AM 5.1 A 5.1 A
PM 13.2 B 13.2 B
10 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr AM 31.9 C 31.7 C
PM 139.4 F 137.2 F -11
11 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way AM 26.7 C 26.8 C
PM 64.2 E 63.6 E 29
12 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 8.0 A 8.2 A
PM 24.7 C 27.8 C
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 81
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Long-Term no
Proj
Long-Term plus
Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
13 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 13.2 B 13.2 B
PM 17.9 B 18.5 B
14 Dublin Blvd & Hibernia Dr AM 15.9 B 16.1 B
PM 36.8 D 36.1 D
15 Dublin Blvd & Myrtle Dr AM 9.8 A 9.8 A
PM 77.4 E 75.7 E -21
16 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd AM 53.4 D 54.0 D
PM 185.4 F 184.3 F -14
17 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara Rd^ AM 9.5 A 9.5 A
PM 10.7 B 10.6 B
18 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita Rd^ AM 29.8 C 30.8 C
PM 29.2 C 29.5 C
19 Central Pkwy & Arnold Rd AM 9.4 A 9.4 A
PM 11.1 B 11.1 B
20 Central Pkwy & Hacienda Dr AM 35.1 D 35.5 D
PM 18.0 B 19.2 B
21 Martinelli Way & Arnold Rd AM 9.7 A 9.7 A
PM 12.3 B 12.4 B
22 Central Pkwy & Tassajara Rd AM 24.6 C 24.9 C
PM 35.7 D 36.5 D
23 Martinelli Way & Project Drwy AM 14.1 B 13.9 B
PM 15.1 B 15.9 B
24 Dublin Blvd & Glynnis Rose Dr AM 13.7 B 13.6 B
PM 57.8 E 56.7 E -19
25 Owens Dr & Hacienda Dr^ AM 96.0 F 93.1 F 41
PM 45.1 D 40.8 D
Notes:
^ denotes intersections under City of Pleasanton jurisdictions.
LOS = Level of service.
Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds
Bold font denotes sub-standard operations
Highlight and trips more than 50 at Dublin intersections or 10 at Pleasanton intersection indicates significant impact
Further, the operation at the Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection (#8) would degrade
from LOS D under No Project scenario to LOS E under plus Project scenario in the AM peak
hour; thereby resulting in a significant impact.
The average delays at some intersections with the project-added traffic are lower than those
under the No Project scenario. In addition to the HCM methodology discussed under Existing
conditions, the reduced delays can also be attributed to the application of the net change in trips
generated by the site to the Year 2035 No Project scenario as a result of the project to obtain the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 82
volumes for the Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 4.2-4, the project would result in a net
negative trip generation in the PM peak hour under Year 2035 conditions.
Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive Intersection long-term cumulative impact. Construction of the
project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the long-term
cumulative time period.
Supplemental Impact TR-5 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin Blvd./Scarlett Dr.
intersection). The Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection would operate at
LOS E without the 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 (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-5 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Blvd./Scarlett Dr. intersection). At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive,
there is a significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the 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.
A significant impact has been identified at this intersection in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
DEIR. The recommended measure is installation of a grade-separated crossing because of the
large number of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Dublin Boulevard at this location. A grade
separation would not only minimize conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles, it
would also allow more green time, that would otherwise be allotted to pedestrian crossing, to be
assigned to through vehicular traffic on Dublin Boulevard.
Although engineering or right of way analysis has not 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.
With the implementation of a grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing, the levels of service
would improve to LOS D during both peak hours under the Long-Term Cumulative plus Project
Conditions.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 83
The required mitigation measure for this impact is currently not included in the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use
growth in the region, the Project Applicant shall make a fair share contribution toward these
improvements prior to occupancy of the last building on the project site. Upon payment, the
project impact would be less-than-significant.
In the event that the grade separated crossing improvement is not constructed by year 2035, an
alternative mitigation would be to eliminate the crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection
across Dublin Boulevard, which would also improve the intersection operations to LOS D and
mitigate the project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, this alternative measure is
undesirable as it would require pedestrians and bicyclists from the Iron Horse Trail to cross three
crosswalks rather than one. Therefore, the grade separated crossing is the City’s preferred
mitigation.
Since the grade separation option has not yet received environmental approval, and to ensure that
the impacts are adequately mitigated, the project developer is required to provide their fair-share
contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the east leg of the
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. The Green’s fair share contribution shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road Intersection long-term cumulative impact. Construction of the
project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the long-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-6 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin Blvd./Arnold Rd.
intersection). 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 (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-6 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Blvd./Arnold Rd. intersection). 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.
Upon implementation of the above mitigation measure, the operations would improve to LOS D.
The required mitigation measure for this impact is currently not included in the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use
growth in the region, the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward these
improvements. The fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building
permit. Upon payment, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 84
Supplemental Impacts to Intersection Queuing. Ninety-fifth percentile queuing analysis was
conducted for the left-turn movements of Dublin intersections operating at unacceptable level of
service or at the upper portion of the LOS D delay range. The 95th percentile queue is defined to
be the queue length that has only a five percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis
time period. The results of the analysis are presented in this section. Detailed worksheets are
included in Appendix D.
In some instances, the queue length for a particular movement is shorter under the Plus Project
scenario than the No Project scenario. This is a result of the way 95th percentile queue length is
calculated by the Synchro analysis software tool and does not affect the overall findings. For
example, the eastbound left-turn queue length is decreased by four feet under the Existing plus
Project scenario as compared to the Existing No Project scenario (Table 4.2-9) where the project
would not add any trips to this movement.
Existing Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-9, left-turn queues would exceed turn pocket
capacity at the Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection under both Existing No
Project and Existing plus Project scenarios. However, project traffic would not lengthen the
queues by 25 feet or more. Therefore, the project impact is less-than-significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
Table 4.2-9. Queuing Analysis – Existing Conditions
No. Intersection Approach
Storage
Length
(ft)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft)
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
8 Dublin Blvd &
Arnold Rd
EBL 240 251 247 No 235 237 No
WBL 360 18 19 No 13 18 No
NBL 160 10 63 No 11 51 No
SBL 175 27 27 No 54 56 No
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-10, left-turn queues would exceed
the length of the turn pockets at all four study intersections under both Short-Term Cumulative
No Project and plus Project scenarios. However, project traffic would lengthen the queues by 25
feet or more at only two intersections. The southbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard
and Dougherty Road (#2) intersection would increase by 32 feet in the PM peak hour and the
westbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection would
increase by 27 feet in the AM peak hour and 49 feet in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the project
impacts at these two intersections are considered to be significant.
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Intersection short-term cumulative queuing impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during
the short-term cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-7 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection). The southbound left-turn queue at the Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road (#2) intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 85
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.
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-7 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing
impact at the Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection). 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.
Alternatively, implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 would also reduce the
95th percentile queue length. However, its implementation would require widening of Dublin
Boulevard, which would have right-of-way constraints and impacts to pedestrians; therefore, it is
considered to be infeasible.
The required mitigation measure is currently not included in the City’s Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) program. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the region,
the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The fair share
contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Upon payment, the
project impact would be less-than-significant.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 86
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
0
.
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
–
S
h
o
rt
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
No
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
St
o
r
a
g
e
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
t
)
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Qu
e
u
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
f
t
)
Q
u
e
u
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
f
t
)
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
2
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
EB
L
2
4
5
3
5
3
5
N
o
1
3
6
1
3
6
N
o
WB
L
5
6
5
1
6
7
1
6
8
N
o
3
0
2
3
0
3
N
o
NB
L
4
9
0
2
5
9
2
5
9
N
o
3
7
7
3
7
7
N
o
SB
L
2
0
5
31
7
3
3
9
No
35
1
38
3
Yes
8
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Ar
n
o
l
d
R
d
EB
L
2
4
0
37
5
3
7
6
No
53
9
5
3
3
No
WB
L
3
6
0
1
0
8
1
0
9
N
o
9
9
1
0
1
N
o
NB
L
1
6
0
2
0
7
4
N
o
4
4
7
8
N
o
SB
L
1
7
5
2
6
0
2
6
0
N
o
5
1
0
5
1
0
N
o
10
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
EB
L
2
5
0
3
6
3
6
N
o
2
3
4
2
3
4
N
o
WB
L
2
5
0
39
8
42
5
Ye
s
22
6
27
5
Yes
NB
L
2
3
5
1
3
1
1
3
1
N
o
61
8
6
1
8
No
SB
L
2
7
0
2
1
2
1
N
o
5
2
5
2
N
o
16
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
d
EB
L
2
2
0
9
0
9
3
N
o
48
8
4
9
4
No
WB
L
3
5
5
1
5
3
1
5
4
N
o
1
0
8
1
0
8
N
o
NB
L
3
2
0
4
2
6
4
3
1
N
o
65
9
6
6
4
No
SB
L
2
5
0
1
9
1
9
N
o
5
3
5
3
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
4
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 87
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive Intersection short-term cumulative queuing impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during
the short-term cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-8 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection). 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 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 (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-8 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing
impact at the Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection). 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.
Alternatively, implementing Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-3 would also reduce the
queue length to within acceptable threshold in the PM peak hour; however, its implementation
would result in adverse effects on pedestrians and bicyclists; thereby not feasible.
The required mitigation measures for these impacts are currently not included in the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Because the impacts are caused by cumulative land
use growth in the region, the project developer shall make fair share contributions toward these
improvements. The fair share contributions shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building
permit. Upon payment, the project impacts would be less-than-significant.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-11, left-turn queues would exceed
the length of the turn pockets at 10 intersections under both Long-Term Cumulative No Project
and plus Project scenarios. However, project traffic would lengthen the queues by 25 feet or
more at only one intersection. The southbound left-turn queue at the Scarlett Avenue and
Dougherty Road (#1) intersection would increase by 31 feet in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the
project impact at this intersection is considered to be significant.
While the project traffic would cause the northbound left-turn queue at the Martinelli Way and
Hacienda Drive (#11) to extend beyond the turn pocket capacity in the PM peak hour, the queue
would extend beyond the turn pocket by less than 25 feet. Therefore, the project impact at this
intersection is less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 88
Table 4.2-11. Queuing Analysis – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions
No. Intersection Approach
Storage
Length
(ft)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft)
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
1 Dougherty Rd &
Scarlett Ave
WBL 100 163 163 No 152 151 No
NBL 135 39 39 No 105 105 No
SBL 100 891 909 No 830 861 Yes
2 Dublin Blvd &
Dougherty Rd
EBL 245 39 39 No 136 136 No
WBL 565 131 129 No 312 314 No
NBL 490 261 261 No 520 520 No
SBL 205 336 336 No 240 240 No
5 Dublin Blvd &
Scarlett Dr
EBL 90 14 13 No 10 10 No
WBL 200 57 57 No 87 80 No
NBL 0 66 66 No 141 141 No
SBL 0 682 693 No 488 506 No
6 Dublin Blvd &
Camp Parks Blvd
EBL 200 209 209 No 177 176 No
WBL 250 56 55 No 127 127 No
NBL 185 269 269 No 196 196 No
SBL 90 109 109 No 225 223 No
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron
Horse Pkwy
EBL 100 44 43 No 182 179 No
WBL 275 108 103 No 123 125 No
NBL 0 254 254 No 1042 1042 No
SBL 0 155 152 No 108 105 No
8 Dublin Blvd &
Arnold Rd
EBL 240 246 246 No 142 139 No
WBL 360 250 252 No 178 181 No
NBL 160 40 102 No 98 97 No
SBL 175 286 286 No 483 483 No
10 Dublin Blvd &
Hacienda Dr
EBL 250 50 50 No 359 359 No
WBL 250 138 144 No 239 231 No
NBL 235 102 102 No 751 751 No
SBL 270 28 28 No 52 52 No
11 Martinelli Way &
Hacienda Dr
EBL 165 48 97 No 396 415 No
WBL 0 80 80 No 241 241 No
NBL 345 226 232 No 317 356 No
SBL 120 17 17 No 55 55 No
15 Dublin Blvd &
Mrtlye Dr
EBL 250 22 21 No 34 34 No
WBL 225 88 88 No 287 287 No
16 Dublin Blvd &
Tassajara Rd
EBL 220 174 174 No 1051 1041 No
WBL 355 288 288 No 392 392 No
NBL 320 567 570 No 1123 1117 No
SBL 250 20 20 No 43 43 No
24 Dublin Blvd &
Glynnis Rose Dr
EBL 250 47 47 No 160 160 No
WBL 200 53 53 No 119 119 No
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 89
No. Intersection Approach
Storage
Length
(ft)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft)
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
NBL 75 39 39 No 141 139 No
SBL 150 70 70 No 46 46 No
Scarlett Drive/Dougherty Road Intersection long-term cumulative queuing impact. Construction
of the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the long-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-9 (long-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd. intersection). The southbound left-turn queue at the Scarlett
Drive and Dougherty Road (#1) 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
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-9 (long-term cumulative plus project queuing
impact at the Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd. intersection). 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.
Upon payment of the fee and traffic signal modification, the project impact would be less-than-
significant.
Supplemental Impacts to MTS Arterial and Freeway Segment. Because the proposed project
would generate at least 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions, a traffic analysis is
required by the CMP to be conducted on MTS arterial and freeway segments for Year 2020 and
Year 2035 conditions using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model.
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. The MTS arterial and freeway segment analysis results for
Year 2020 conditions are presented in Table 4.2-12. The results indicate that all study MTS
arterial and freeway segments would be within acceptable thresholds. Therefore, the project
impacts are not considered to be significant.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. The MTS arterial and freeway segment analysis results for
Year 2035 conditions are presented in Table 4.2-13. The results indicate that, with the exception
of Dublin Boulevard east of Hacienda Drive in the AM peak hour and west of Arnold Road in
the PM peak hour, all other MTS arterial and freeway segments would be within acceptable
thresholds. The two segments of Dublin Boulevard would operate at LOS F under both No
Project and plus Project scenarios. However, the volume-to-capacity ratio would not increase by
0.02 or more. Therefore, the project impacts are not considered to be significant.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 90
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
2
.
M
T
S
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
&
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
ts
s
h
o
r
t
t
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
la
t
i
v
e
(
y
e
a
r
2
0
2
0
)
Sh
o
r
t
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Sh
o
r
t
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
plus Project
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/CLOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
8,
1
3
8
0.
6
0
C
8,
2
1
1
0.
7
8
C
8,
1
4
9
0.
6
1
C
8,233 0.79 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
6,
4
5
0
0.
6
2
B
8,
3
1
4
0.
6
6
C
6,
4
7
6
0.
6
2
B
8,340 0.66 C
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
37
3
0.
1
4
C
2,
3
6
2
0.
8
7
D
41
9
0.
1
5
C
2,414 0.89 D
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
19
3
0.
0
7
C
2,
6
7
8
0.
9
9
E
22
0
0.
0
8
C
2,709 1.00 E
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
31
7
0.
1
2
C
1,
5
3
8
0.
5
7
C
32
2
0.
1
2
C
1,543 0.57 C
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Volume V/C LOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
11
,
3
4
7
0.
8
4
D
6,
8
9
9
0.
6
6
C
0.
7
9
0.
7
9
D
6,911 0.66 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
9,
4
1
1
0.
9
0
D
7,
1
7
8
0.
5
7
B
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
D
7,201 0.57 B
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
1,
4
6
0
0.
5
4
C
2,
3
5
2
0.
8
7
D
0.
8
9
0.
8
9
C
2,391 0.88 D
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
2,
0
7
4
0.
7
7
C
63
9
0.
2
4
C
1.
0
0
1.
0
0
C
675 0.25 C
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
1,
5
8
1
0.
5
8
C
67
8
0.
2
5
C
0.
5
7
0.
5
7
C
681 0.25 C
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
3
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 91
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
3
.
M
T
S
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
&
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
en
t
s
-
L
o
n
g
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
(
Y
e
a
r
2
0
3
5
)
Lo
n
g
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Lo
n
g
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
plus Project
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
VolumeV/CLOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
9,
7
9
3
0.
7
3
C
9,
1
9
1
0.
8
8
C
9,
7
9
8
0.
7
3
C
9,198 0.88 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
7,
8
4
1
0.
7
5
C
8,
9
1
3
0.
7
0
C
7,
8
6
0
0.
7
5
C
8,937 0.71 C
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
1,
5
9
5
0.
5
9
C
2,
5
8
3
0.
9
5
E
1,
6
3
6
0.
6
0
C
2,615 0.97 E
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
77
7
0.
2
9
C
3,
0
1
7
1.
1
1
F
80
2
0.
3
0
C
3,047 1.12 F
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
46
5
0.
1
7
C
2,
2
1
9
0.
8
2
D
47
0
0.
1
7
C
2,223 0.82 D
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Volume V/C LOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
11
,
7
4
1
0.
8
7
D
7,
9
5
2
0.
7
6
C
11
,
7
5
6
0.
8
7
D
7,935 0.76 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
10
,
2
1
7
0.
9
7
D
7,
9
0
9
0.
6
3
C
10
,
2
1
8
0.
9
7
D
7,931 0.63 C
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
2,
6
3
0
0.
9
7
E
3,
1
7
1
1.
1
7
F
2,
6
8
4
0.
9
9
E
3,178 1.17 F
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
2,
9
5
5
1.
0
9
F
2,
5
1
7
0.
9
3
D
2,
9
7
2
1.
1
0
F
2,552 0.94 D
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
2,
4
9
8
0.
9
2
D
90
5
0.
3
3
C
2,
5
0
2
0.
9
2
D
906 0.33 C
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
3
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 92
Supplemental Impacts to Routes of Regional Significance. Arterial level of service analysis
was conducted for Routes of Regional Significance in the project area to determine if the project
would cause the segment to degrade below LOS D or if the project would cause the volume to
capacity ratio to increase by 0.02 or more when the arterial is already operating below LOS D
without the project. The volume to capacity ratio was calculated by dividing the volume on the
segment by the capacity of the segment. The results of the analysis are presented in this section.
Detailed worksheets are included in Appendix E of SEIR Appendix 8.6.
Existing Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-14, arterial segments would operate below LOS D
standard under Existing conditions but the project impacts are considered to be significant at
only the following roadways:
The eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive
would degrade to LOS E with the project in the AM peak hour.
The northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing would operate at LOS F under No Project scenario and the project would cause
the volume to capacity ratio to increase by more than 0.02 in the PM peak hour; while the
northbound segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway would degrade to
LOS E with the project in the PM peak hour.
Dublin Boulevard Between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia roadway segment impact s
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-10 (roadway segment impact along Dublin Blvd. between
Hacienda Dr. and Hibernia Dr.). 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 (significant supplemental impact remains significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Dublin Boulevard.
The deterioration of level service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger
intersections along Dublin Boulevard such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive and Tassajara
Road. Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed along
Dublin Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts
related to pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact
remains significant and unavoidable.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 93
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
4
.
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
O
S-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
D
D
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
4 0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
B
B
23
0.
0
0
9
C
C
20 0.007
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
SB
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
35
6
0
D
D
23
0.
0
0
6
D
D
29 0.008
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
C
C
0 0.000
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
EB
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Ro
a
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
B
C
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
B
B
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
C
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
E
E
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
2 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
D
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
2 0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
D
E
30
0.
0
1
1
YE
S
D
D
28 0.010
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
30
0.
0
1
1
C
C
28 0.010
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
A
A
30
0.
0
1
1
B
B
28 0.010
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
30
0.
0
1
1
C
C
28 0.010
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
26
7
0
F
F
30
0.
0
1
1
F
F
28 0.010
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
36
0.
0
1
3
D
D
42 0.016
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
B
B
42 0.016
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
C
C
42 0.016
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
33
0.
0
1
2
F
F
42 0.016
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
E
E
32
0.
0
1
2
C
D
43 0.016
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 94
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
3 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
E
F
2
0.
0
0
1
C
C
3 0.001
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
C
73
0.
0
2
7
C
C
52 0.019
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
26
7
0
D
D
73
0.
0
2
7
C
D
52 0.019
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
B
B
73
0.
0
2
7
B
B
52 0.019
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Rd
26
7
0
D
D
73
0.
0
2
7
E
E
53 0.020
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
NB
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
51
0.
0
1
4
D
D
83 0.023
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
68
0.
0
2
5
C
D
121 0.045
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
26
7
0
D
D
12
0
0.
0
4
5
F
F
190 0.071 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
35
6
0
F
F
48
0.
0
1
3
F
F
43 0.012
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
17
8
0
D
D
21
0.
0
1
2
D
E
17 0.010 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
F
F
20
0.
0
0
8
F
F
27 0.011
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
33
9
0
E
E
50
0.
0
1
5
E
E
66 0.019
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
12
6
0.
0
3
7
C
C
99 0.029
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
58
0.
0
2
3
C
C
53 0.021
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
33
9
0
C
C
58
0.
0
1
7
C
C
53 0.016
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
16
9
0
B
B
3
0.
0
0
2
C
C
4 0.002
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
D
D
6
0.
0
0
2
E
E
8 0.003
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
16
9
0
C
C
5
0.
0
0
3
C
C
4 0.002
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
C
C
5
0.
0
0
2
D
D
6 0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
6
0.
0
0
2
C
C
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
7
0.
0
0
3
D
D
4 0.002
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
4
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 95
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 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, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Hacienda Drive Between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway roadway segment impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-11 (roadway segment impact along Hacienda Dr. between Dublin
Blvd. and Central Pkwy.). 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
(significant supplemental impact remains significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Hacienda Drive.
The deterioration of level service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate
pedestrian crossings of Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal
priority given to Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Optimization
of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through lanes, or
prohibition pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Hacienda Drive.
However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian
mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
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 developer 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, elements described under Alternative
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 96
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-15, 19 arterial segments would
operate below LOS D standard under Short-Term Cumulative conditions but the project impacts
are considered to be significant at only the following four segments:
The eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse
Parkway would operate at LOS E under No Project scenario and the project would cause
the volume to capacity ratio to increase by more than 0.02 in the PM peak hour.
The westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road
would operate at LOS E under No Project scenario and the project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio to increase by more than 0.02 in the AM peak hour.
The northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour
under No Project scenario and the project would cause the volume to capacity ratio to
increase by more than 0.02.
The northbound Tassajara Road segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central
Parkway would degrade to LOS E with the project in the PM peak hour.
Dublin Boulevard Between DeMarcus Boulevard and the Iron Horse Parkway roadway segment
impact. Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified
below.
Supplemental Impact TR-12 (roadway segment impact along Dublin Blvd. between
DeMarcus Blvd. and Iron Horse Pkwy.) The project would cause the volume to capacity
ratio along the eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and
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. (significant supplemental impact
remains significant and unavoidable).
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 97
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
5
.
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
LO
S
-
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
4 0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
23
0.
0
0
9
D
D
20 0.007
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
SB
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
D
D
23
0.
0
0
9
E
E
29 0.011
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
EB
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Ro
a
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
D
D
52
0.
0
1
9
D
D
80 0.030
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
E
E
52
0.
0
1
9
E
E
80 0.030 YES
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
D
D
52
0.
0
1
9
C
D
80 0.030
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
2 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
E
E
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
2 0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
30
0.
0
1
1
E
E
28 0.010
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
30
0.
0
1
1
D
D
28 0.010
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
30
0.
0
1
1
C
C
28 0.010
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
30
0.
0
1
1
F
F
28 0.010
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
26
7
0
F
F
30
0.
0
1
1
F
F
28 0.010
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
33
0.
0
1
2
E
E
42 0.016
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
D
D
42 0.016
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
D
D
42 0.016
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
33
0.
0
1
2
C
C
42 0.016
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
32
0.
0
1
2
E
E
43 0.016
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
3 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
E
F
2
0.
0
0
1
E
E
3 0.001
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 98
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
C
73
0.
0
2
7
C
C
52 0.019
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
26
7
0
D
D
73
0.
0
2
7
D
D
52 0.019
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
73
0.
0
2
7
C
C
52 0.019
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Rd
26
7
0
E
E
73
0.
0
2
7
YE
S
D
D
53 0.020
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
NB
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
51
0.
0
1
4
D
D
83 0.023
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
68
0.
0
2
5
C
C
121 0.045
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
26
7
0
E
E
12
0
0.
0
4
5
YE
S
F
F
190 0.071 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
48
0.
0
1
8
F
F
43 0.016
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
17
8
0
D
D
21
0.
0
1
2
D
D
17 0.010
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
F
F
20
0.
0
0
8
F
F
27 0.011
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
33
9
0
F
F
50
0.
0
1
5
F
F
66 0.019
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
D
D
12
6
0.
0
3
7
C
C
99 0.029
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
58
0.
0
2
3
C
C
53 0.021
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
33
9
0
D
D
58
0.
0
1
7
D
D
53 0.016
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
16
9
0
D
D
3
0.
0
0
2
E
E
4 0.002
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
E
E
6
0.
0
0
2
F
F
8 0.003
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
16
9
0
C
C
5
0.
0
0
3
D
E
4 0.002 YES
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
33
9
0
F
F
5
0.
0
0
1
F
F
6 0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
6
0.
0
0
2
C
C
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
7
0.
0
0
3
D
D
4 0.002
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
4
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 99
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Dublin Boulevard.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Dublin
Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
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, elements described under Alternative Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard Between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road roadway segment impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-13 (roadway segment impact along Dublin Blvd. between
Scarlett Dr. and Dougherty Rd.) 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 (significant supplemental impact remains
significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Dublin Boulevard.
The deterioration of level service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger
intersections along Dublin Boulevard such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive and Tassajara
Road. Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on
Dublin Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts
related to pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact
remains significant and unavoidable.
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 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
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 100
include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Hacienda Drive between the I-580 Westbound Ramps and Hacienda Crossings roadway segment
impact. Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified
below.
Supplemental Impact TR-14 (under short-term cumulative No Project conditions, roadway
segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr. between the I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing). 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 (significant supplemental impact remains significant and
unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Hacienda Drive.
The deterioration of level service is primarily due to delay resulting from long cycle length
necessary to facilitate pedestrian crossings across Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard
intersection as well as the signal priority given to Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic
on Hacienda Drive.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Hacienda
Drive. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
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, elements described under Alternative Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 101
Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Construction of the project
would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-15 (under short-term cumulative conditions, roadway segment
impact along northbound Tassajara Rd. between Dublin Blvd. and Central Pkwy.). 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 (significant supplemental impact remains
significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Tassajara Road.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Tassajara
Road. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
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 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, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-16, most of the study arterial
segments would operate below LOS D standard under Long-Term Cumulative conditions but the
project impacts are considered to be significant at only the following roadways:
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 102
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
6
.
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
O
S
-
L
o
n
g
-
T
er
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
‐2 ‐0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
F
F
0
0.
0
0
0
F
F
0 0.000
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
SB
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
0
0.
0
0
0
F
F
‐1 0.000
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
E
E
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
F
F
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D ‐2 ‐0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
EB
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Ro
a
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
12
0.
0
0
4
E
E
16 0.006
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
C
C
20
0.
0
0
7
D
D
32 0.012
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
D
D
19
0.
0
0
7
F
F
30 0.011
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
D
D
17
0.
0
0
6
C
C
29 0.011
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
2
0.
0
0
1
C
C ‐2 ‐0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
E
E
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
0 0.000
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
21
0.
0
0
8
F
F
‐21 ‐0.008
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
22
0.
0
0
8
F
F
‐19 ‐0.007
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
A
A
22
0.
0
0
8
C
C ‐18 ‐0.007
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
22
0.
0
0
8
F
F
‐18 ‐0.007
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
35
6
0
F
F
22
0.
0
0
6
F
F
‐16 ‐0.004
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
16
0.
0
0
6
F
F
1 0.000
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
15
0.
0
0
6
D
D ‐2 ‐0.001
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
15
0.
0
0
6
C
C ‐2 ‐0.001
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
14
0.
0
0
5
D
D ‐3 ‐0.001
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
35
6
0
E
E
13
0.
0
0
4
F
F
‐4 ‐0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
WB
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
3 0.001
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 103
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Bl
v
d
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
2 0.001
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
D
60
0.
0
2
2
F
F
0 0.000
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
26
7
0
E
E
61
0.
0
2
3
YE
S
F
F
3 0.001
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
F
F
61
0.
0
2
3
YE
S
D
D ‐6 ‐0.002
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Rd
26
7
0
D
D
41
0.
0
1
5
E
E
2 0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
NB
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
7
0.
0
0
2
E
E
13 0.004
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C ‐
9 ‐
0.
0
0
3
E
E
25 0.009
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
26
7
0
E
E
‐55
‐
0.
0
2
1
F
F
54 0.020 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
37
0.
0
1
4
F
F
‐22 ‐0.008
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
17
8
0
F
F
19
0.
0
1
1
D
D ‐1 ‐0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
F
F
7
0.
0
0
3
F
F
15 0.006
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
33
9
0
F
F
17
0.
0
0
5
F
F
8 0.002
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
D
D
90
0.
0
2
7
C
C ‐38 ‐0.011
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
33
0.
0
1
3
C
C ‐36 ‐0.014
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
33
9
0
E
E
35
0.
0
1
0
D
D ‐36 ‐0.011
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
16
9
0
C
C
3
0.
0
0
2
D
D ‐5 ‐0.003
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
33
9
0
E
E
4
0.
0
0
1
F
F
‐8 ‐0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
25
4
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D ‐7 ‐0.003
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
33
9
0
F
F
‐2 ‐
0.
0
0
1
F
F
‐8 ‐0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
6
0.
0
0
2
C
C
1 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
E
E
7
0.
0
0
3
D
D
2 0.001
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
l
e
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
(
2
0
1
4
)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 104
The westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and Scarlett
Drive would operate at LOS E and LOS F in the AM peak hour under No project
scenario and the project would cause the volume to capacity ratio to increase by more
than 0.02.
The northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour under No Project scenario and the
project would cause the volume to capacity ratio to increase by 0.02.
Dublin Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks roadway segment impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-16 (under long-term cumulative conditions, roadway segment
impact along westbound Dublin Blvd. between Iron Horse Pkwy. and Camp Parks). The
project would cause the volume to capacity ratios along the westbound Dublin Boulevard
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
(significant supplemental impact remains significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Dublin Boulevard.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Dublin
Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
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 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, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia roadway segment impacts Construction
of the project would result in an impact along the following roadway segment.
Supplemental Impact TR-17 (under long-term cumulative No Project conditions, roadway
segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr. between the I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing). The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 105
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 (significant supplemental impact remains
significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Hacienda Drive.
The deterioration of level service is primarily due to long cycle length required to facilitate
pedestrian crossings across Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the
signal priority given to Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Hacienda
Drive. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
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 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, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Supplemental Impacts to Public Transit. The demand for public transit service resulting from
the implementation of the proposed project was estimated using the Alameda Countywide Travel
Demand Model (2035 forecast) and project trip generation. The Countywide Model indicates the
following mode shares for trips to and from the project site:
59% Drive Alone
30% Shared Ride
1% Transit
10% Bike/Walk
Applying these percentages to the project trip generation, after converting from vehicle trip
generation to total person trip generation, the project would generate approximately eight
additional transit trips during the AM and PM peak hours.
Given the current peak hour boardings on key LAVTA bus routes, the transit trips added by the
project would represent a seven percent increase in peak hour boardings compared to existing
bus service. If it is conservatively assumed that most or all of the project boardings would be on
the highest ridership route, Route 12, the resulting passenger load would be well within seated
capacity. Therefore, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 106
The Alameda County travel model may not fully represent the additional transit use induced by
the project’s close proximity to BART. The vehicle trip generation for the project incorporates a
five percent reduction for BART use. This would correspond to 40 to 50 BART passengers
during peak hours. The added passengers are within BART’s ridership forecast of approximately
6,000 annual increase in weekday ridership per year and consistent with BART’s future service
and capacity plans.11 Therefore the project would not require changes in BART’s planned service
levels. Therefore, the project impact would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures
are required.
The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the GPA/SP Project would create a need for substantial
expansion of transit systems, resulting in a significant impact. The impact of the project on
BART and LAVTA bus service was adequately analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project
is subject to the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR as applicable.
Supplemental Impacts to Bicycle Facilities. As stated in the Environmental Setting section, the
City of Dublin Bikeway Master Plan proposes a number of new bicycle facilities along roadways
in the study area, including bike lanes on Arnold Road directly adjacent to the project site, and
on Martinelli Way and Altamirano Road immediately west of the project site. The proposed
project would not interfere with implementation of the planned bike lanes or disrupt existing
bikeways in the project area. Since the project’s limited access driveway on Arnold Road would
only serve as a secondary access, any potential conflict with bicyclists is anticipated to be
minimal. Driveway access design should ensure sight distance is adequate to allow a clear view
of bicyclists for both inbound and outbound vehicles. Because detailed plans containing such
information as the proposed number of on-site bicycle parking space and driveway design are not
available at the time of this analysis, the project impact is potentially significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-18 (impacts to bicycle facilities). The project could conflict with
adopted bicycle plans, guidelines, policies or standards (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-18 (impacts to bicycle facilities). 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.
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant. The
project is subject to the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR as applicable, and the
project plans are expected to incorporate such mitigations subject to review and approval by the
City.
Supplemental Pedestrian Impacts. The project would result in an increase in walk trips in the
project area by visitors and residents. While the project is not anticipated to result in unsafe
condition for pedestrians or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or program, detailed plans
containing such information as pedestrian improvements along the frontage and within the
11 Bay Area Rapid Transit District Short-Range Transit Plan, FY08 through FY17, 2007.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 107
project site are not available at the time of this analysis, the project impact is potentially
significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-19 (impacts to pedestrian facilities). The project could conflict
with adopted policies, plans or program supporting pedestrians (significant supplemental
impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-19 (impacts to pedestrian facilities). 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.
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant. The
project is subject to the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR as applicable, and the
project plans are expected to incorporate such mitigations subject to review and approval by the
City.
Supplemental Impacts to Complete Street Policy. A detailed site plan was not available for
review at the time of this analysis. However, a preliminary drawing indicates short residential
blocks with walkways between buildings that would facilitate pedestrian circulation within the
project site. It also shows curb extensions throughout the site that would help calm traffic in both
the retail commercial area near the main entry and the residential portions of the site thereby
creating a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Project may consider the
following features that would further accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders:
Ensure direct pedestrian access points are provided onto Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road
and Martinelli Way in addition to the proposed vehicular access locations in order to
facilitate convenient access for pedestrians and transit riders. This is particularly
important in the southwestern portion through which residents and visitors might access
the BART station along the frontage road and in the southeast portion where no driveway
is proposed along Hacienda Drive.
Provide secure long-term bicycle storage for employees of the retail commercial land use
in addition to the required short-term bicycle parking spaces.
Supplemental Impact TR-20 (impacts to pedestrian Complete Streets policies). The project
could conflict with adopted policies, plans or program supporting pedestrians, including
the City’s Complete Streets policies (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-20 (impacts to pedestrian Complete Streets
policies). 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.
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 108
Supplemental Impacts to Traffic Safety. A detailed design plan is not available at the time of
this analysis; therefore, it is uncertain if the project would include features that would directly or
indirectly cause or expose roadway users to a permanent and substantial transportation hazard.
Supplemental Impact TR-21 (traffic safety impacts). 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 (significant supplemental impact and mitigation
required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-21 (traffic safety impacts). 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. (significant supplemental impact and mitigation
required).
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
Supplemental Impacts during Construction. The project would be constructed over a period
of time. Construction would include numerous disruptions to the transportation system in and
around the project area, which may include temporary street closures and sidewalk closures.
Heavy vehicles would access the project area and would need to be staged for construction.
Short-term construction activities and staging of construction vehicles and equipment would
result in degraded roadway operations.
Supplemental Impact TR-22 (construction period impacts). 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 (significant
supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-22 (construction period impacts). 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
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 109
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
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative traffic and transportation impacts are addressed above.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 110
4.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the DSEIR analyzes potential supplemental impacts with respect to schools and
parks and recreation services.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Schools. Public education facilities within the City of Dublin are provided by the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD). The District operates six elementary schools, two middle schools, and
one high school. A continuation high school and a K-3 parent participation program is also
operated by the DUSD.
Schools that would be affected by the proposed project include:
• Dougherty Elementary, 5301 Hibernia
• Fallon Middle School, 3601 Kohnen Way
• Dublin High School, 8151 Village Parkway
• Valley High School, 6901 York Drive
Elementary schools located near the project site are operating near or at planned enrollment
capacity. The District may modify local school enrollment boundaries to optimize attendance at
each individual school.
Table 3.3-1 summarizes current enrollment and optimum capacity for affected local public
schools.
Table 4.3-1. Current Public School Enrollment v. Capacity
School Facility 2013/14 Enrollment School Capacity
Dougherty Elementary 805 933
Fallon Middle School 1,110 1,232
Dublin High 1,737 2,232
Valley High 80 360
Source: Dublin Unified School District, 2013
In addition to the public schools identified above, a number of private schools are located in
Dublin and the larger Tri-Valley area.
In 1998 Senate Bill 50 became effective as a result of the California voters approving
Proposition 1A. SB 50 establishes an amount of allowable developer fees, which is known as a
Level 1 fee. The statute allows a school district to exceed the base Level 1 fees and impose
higher Level 2 fees if the district 1) is determined to be eligible for State funding; 2) adopts a
school facilities needs analysis; and 3) satisfies other criteria of SB 50. Statutory provisions
establish a maximum amount of Level 2 fees for all projects within a particular school district.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 111
The statute also allows a district to impose Level 3 fees if Level 2 fees have been imposed and
state funding is no longer available. Currently, the DUSD collects Level 2 fees from developers.
Parks. The City of Dublin operates and extensive local parks system as well as a comprehensive
array of recreation programs within local parks and elsewhere in the community. No
neighborhood or community parks are located on the project site.
Parks closest to the project site include Emerald Glen Park, consisting of approximately 48 acres
of parkland with ball courts, tennis courts, picnic areas, turf areas, restrooms and similar
facilities. Emerald Glen Park is located on the north side of Central Parkway west of Tassajara
Road. Another nearby facility is the Dublin Sports Grounds located adjacent to the Dublin Civic
Center on the south side of Dublin Boulevard at Sierra Court. This facility offers baseball and
football/soccer fields, a play area, picnicking, turf areas and restrooms.
The City recently approved and is designing a passive linear park adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail
north of Amador Valley Boulevard.
Regional park and recreational facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District.
The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan (May 2006) recommends that the City
provide a total of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, which includes 1.5 acres of neighborhood
parkland and 3.5 acres of community parkland. In lieu of providing new parkland to the City,
project builders and developers may elect to pay a Community Facility Fee that includes a
component for “in-lieu” park fees to satisfy park dedication requirements.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following regulatory programs and policies regulate provision of parks and schools in
Dublin.
Dublin General Plan. The Open Space Element of the Dublin General Plan contains the
following policies regarding open space within the Primary and Extended Planning Areas of the
community.
• Expand park area throughout the Primary and Extended Planning Areas to serve new
development (Guiding Policy A.1).
• Maintain and improve existing outdoor facilities in conformance with the
recommendations of the City’s parks and Recreation Master Plan (Guiding Policy A.2).
• Acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the standards and policies in the
City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Implementing Policy B.1)
• Provide active parks and facilities which are adequate o meet citywide needs for open
space, cultural and sports facilities, as the local needs of the Eastern Extended Planning
Area (Guiding Policy A.1)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 112
• Require land dedication and improvements in parks designated in the General Plan for
the eastern Extended Planning Area and based on a standard of 5 net acres per 1,000
residents. Collect in-lieu park fees as required by City policies (Implementing Policy
B.1).
The following General Plan policy deals with provision of public schools.
• Require provision of school sites through dedication and/or developer fees. Establish
appropriate mechanism for funding development of school facilities. (Implementing
Policy B.1).
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains he following goals
and policies relative to public schools.
• To provide school facilities adequate to meet the community’s need to quality education
(Goal 8.1).
• Ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to development in Eastern
Dublin, to the extent permitted by law.
Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, updated in
2006, has been adopted to establishing goals, long-term policies and standards to guide the City
in the acquisition, development and management of Dublin Park’s and Recreation facilities for a
twenty-year period.
State of California SB 50. This act (also known as the School Facilities Act of 1998) provides
for state of California funding of school facilities under certain criteria,; however, it also limits
the amount of impact fees that local school districts could charge.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing
fire and police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each new
development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail
corridors.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the
City’s parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication
requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active
recreation use.
IKEA SEIR. The topic of community facilities was not analyzed in the IKEA SEIR.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 113
Development on the project site will be required to pay the City of Dublin Public Facilities fee,
which includes park development fees.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section identifies potentially significant impacts to schools and parks.
Significance criteria. A proposed project would be considered to result in a significant impact if
there is a demonstrable need for new or expanded parks or school facilities to serve the proposed
project, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratio or other performance objectives of the public service provider.
Supplemental school impacts. No residences currently exist on the site that generate school
children that need to be served by the Dublin Unified School District. Approval and construction
of the proposed project would add up to 400 residences. According to the DUSD, 127 students
would be generated at full project build-out. This is shown on Table 4.3-2, below.
Table 4.3-2. DUSD Student Generation Rates
Grade Level/School Students Generated
K-5/Dougherty Elementary 69
6-8/Wells or Fallon Middle School 27
9-12/Dublin High or Valley High School 31
Total Students Generated 127
Source: DUSD, 2014
Under SB 50, payment of the permitted school fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation
of school facilities impacts for CEQA and other purposes. SB 50 limits the amount of fees a
school district may legally impose on new development. DUSD imposes these fees on new
development; therefore, there would be no supplemental impacts related to funding of school
facilities.
Supplemental park impacts. Approval and construction of the project would result in up to 400
attached dwellings on The Green site. Based on information contained in Section 4.1 of the
DSEIR (Population and Housing), build-out of these dwellings would generate approximately
1,080 residents on the site that would require local park space. The proposed project would also
result in new commercial development that would attract visitors, shoppers and employees to the
site that may use local park facilities. The current project proposal does not include the provision
of any public park space, although the site is proposed to contain approximately 2.25 acres of
open gathering spaces for both the commercial uses and private residences.
According to the City of Dublin’s Park and Community Facilities Director (Paul McCreary,
8/23/13), this portion of Dublin is considered underserved by neighborhood parkland.
Pursuant to the City’s park dedication ratio of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, the proposed
project would require the dedication of 5 acres of local parkland to the City of Dublin. This
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 114
amount is not proposed to be dedicated to the City. Since this portion of Dublin is considered
underserved for neighborhood parks, this would be a significant supplemental impact.
Supplemental Impact Park-1 (lack of adequate local parkland). 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 (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental measure would mitigate the above impact to a less-
than-significant level by requiring a combination of dedicating a minimum 2-acre neighborhood
square and partial payment of Community Facility fees.
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.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 115
4.4 PUBLIC UTILITIES – SEWER & WATER
Sewer, water, storm drainage, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste were analyzed in
Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Based on the analysis in the NOP, only
sewer and water required supplemental analysis under CEQA standards.
WASTEWATER
Wastewater (referred to as “Sewer” in the Eastern Dublin EIR) Collection, Treatment and
Disposal impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water, Storm Drainage, of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. This supplemental analysis is provided in accordance with CEQA standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastern Dublin EIR examined wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal issues for the
Project area. DSRSD, which owns and operates a treatment plant in Pleasanton, was identified as
the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project area with disposal
provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint
powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD. LAVWMA operates a
pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade and into East Bay Dischargers
Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge into San Francisco Bay. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identified the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA), a joint powers authority which, at
that time, was planning for disposal capacity beyond that which could be provided by
LAVWMA. TWA was at that date proposing to transport untreated wastewater through the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District collection system for treatment and disposal in Martinez.
In 1994 TWA transferred authority over acquiring/constructing additional disposal capacity to
LAVWMA. LAVWMA, as described below, subsequently chose to construct improvements to
its existing disposal pipeline and the construction of a second disposal pipeline over the Dublin
Grade for discharge into San Francisco Bay using EBDA facilities (1994 Addendum to the
Eastern Dublin EIR).
Most recently, LAVWMA have confirmed that wastewater disposal pipeline from the Tri-Valley
area to the East Bay Dischargers outfall facility has been constructed and is fully operational.
The pipeline has been designed and constructed to accommodate maximum General Plan build-
out of all of the participating communities in the Tri-Valley area including Dublin (source: Ed
Cunningham, LAVMWA Executive Director 8/25/13).
Regulatory framework
The EDSP established Goals, Policies and Action Programs to guide cooperation between the
City, the DSRSD and the project developers in producing new wastewater collection, treatment
and disposal facilities. These policies included coordinating with DSRSD on the expansion of
their recycled water service boundary, ensuring availability of wastewater treatment and disposal
capacity by working with DSRSD and requiring developers to get “will-serve” letters from
DSRSD prior to City grading permit approval.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 116
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous potential impacts related to wastewater. The lack of
a collection system was identified as a significant impact and Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0,
generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers, were
adopted to mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Potential growth inducing impacts
of pipeline construction were mitigated by preventing the construction of facilities greater than
those required for the GPA/SP project. Inadequate treatment plant capacity in DSRSD's
treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity were identified as significant impacts: both were
mitigated to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures requiring developers to obtain
"will-serve" letters from DSRSD prior to issuance of grading permits; DSRSD will not issue a
"will-serve" letter in the absence of treatment plant and disposal capacity. An additional
mitigation measure requires Eastern Dublin developers to prepare detailed wastewater capacity
investigations. Other mitigation measures supported DSRSD, TWA and, subsequently,
LAVWMA in efforts to expand treatment and disposal capacity (along with recycled water
projects). Other impacts to the planned TWA disposal systems and the recycled water systems
related to noise, odors and potential spills also were identified and mitigated to levels of
insignificance. The impact of the use of recycled water on the main groundwater basin was
identified as a potential impact and a mitigation measure requiring coordination of recycled
water projects with Zone 7's salt mitigation program mitigated this impact to insignificance.
Even with these mitigation measures, several impacts related to increased energy use for the
sewer systems (Impact 3.5/F,H,V) and growth-inducement (Impact 3.5/T) remained significant
and unavoidable. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these impacts (Resolution No. 53-93).
Wastewater issues were not analyzed in the IKEA Supplemental EIR.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The project includes a change in the type of development proposed on the site from large
commercial development evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR to a mixed-use
residential and commercial project. This may create potentially significant impacts to wastewater
treatment and disposal capacity.
Significance Criteria. Implementation of the project would be considered to have a significant
wastewater impact if, in addition to the impacts previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, it
were to:
exceed wastewater treatment standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board; or
require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
Supplemental impacts. The following project level impacts are analyzed in this section of the
DSEIR: the adequacy of the wastewater collection, wastewater treatment capacity and treatment
and the adequacy of wastewater disposal systems.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 117
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 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 gpd/sq ft 500 gpd
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condominium/
Townhouse
400 DU 120 gpd/DU 48,000 gpd
Total Estimated Project Wastewater Demand52,000 gpd
Difference between Approved Project and Proposed Project +21,500 gpd with
Proposed Project
Source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 4/25/2014
Wastewater treatment capacity. DSRSD operates a wastewater treatment plant that serves
customers from both DSRSD and the City of Pleasanton. Raw wastewater from Dublin,
including the project site, is treated at the District’s regional treatment plant which is located
north of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The regional plant has been designed and maintained
Regional Water Quality Board approvals to treat 17.0 million gallons of wastewater (mgd) per
day. Inflow on untreated wastewater into the plant averages 11.0 mgd in the dry season (source:
S. Kolodzie, DSRSD, 10/24/13).
Therefore, the District has adequate wastewater treatment capacity at the regional plant to
accommodate the estimated 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.
Wastewater disposal capacity. LAVWMA, a joint powers agency, was created in 1974 by the
cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and the DSRSD to dispose of treated wastewater in the Tri-
Valley area. Effluent from the wastewater treatment plants operated by the City of Livermore
and DSRSD is conveyed to LAVWMA regulating reservoirs in Pleasanton and then via a 16-
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 118
mile export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro.
The EBDA pipeline conveys the effluent for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay.
The Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) pipeline that disposes
of treated wastewater into San Francisco Bay via East Bay Dischargers facilities may have
inadequate capacity to accommodate the increased amount of treated wastewater generated by
the proposed The Green project.
The export pipeline has been expanded in size in 1983, 1987 and 2003. It has a current maximum
capacity of 41.2 million gallons per day and was designed to accommodate the maximum build-
out of the General Plans from all participating LAVWMA agencies. Currently, average daily
flows in the export pipeline are far below the design capacity of pipe and more than adequate
wastewater disposal capacity exists for The Green project. The project would not require the
construction of new wastewater disposal facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. This
impact would be less-than-significant on a project level.
Similarly, the proposed project would be less-than-significant on a cumulative level, since no
new or expanded wastewater facilities would be required. The area of cumulative analysis is the
DSRSD boundary, which includes the City of Dublin and surrounding jurisdictions in the Tri-
Valley area.
WATER
Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water, and Storm
Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR and in an addendum dated August 22, 1994. This
supplemental analysis is provided in accordance with CEQA standards. It also evaluates these
issues in light of the project’s revised land uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Domestic and recycled water is supplied to The Green site by the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD or District). DSRSD obtains its potable water supplies from Zone 7 of the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), which wholesales
treated local surface water, groundwater, and imported water from the State Water Project to
retail water agencies. Recycled water is provided from DSRSD’s wastewater treatment plant in
Pleasanton and meets the State of California Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse.
Water Supply and Infrastructure. The City of Dublin and the Dougherty valley portion of San
Ramon are supplied by water provided by DSRSD, headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns and
operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations, reservoirs, and
water turnouts. DSRSD obtains its potable water from Zone 7.
Treated potable water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 via four pipelines owned by Zone 7:
Cross Valley Pipeline, Santa Rita-Dougherty Pipeline, Santa Rita Pipeline, and Dougherty
Pipeline. This water is supplied through five turnouts. Turnout No. 1 is located at the
intersection of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. Turnout No. 2 is located at the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 119
intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. The third turnout is in the
vicinity of Arnold Drive and Altamirano Road. The fourth turnout is located on Friesman Road,
south of I-580, adjacent to Eastern Dublin. A fifth, seldom used, emergency turnout is located
on 4th Street within Camp Parks.
Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout DSRSD’s water service area,
including Dublin, via a grid of underground water transmission lines, delivering water to
residences, businesses, and other customers within the District’s service area. Such water
transmission facilities are present in Arnold Road, which is adjacent to the Project site.
Both Zone 7 and DSRSD impose fees on development to assist in funding each District’s
respective water infrastructure and pumping and storage of water supplies. DSRSD currently
charges connection and other fees on new development within the District’s service area. Fees
are used for construction of planned water system capital improvements, including storage,
pumping, transmission, and ongoing system water maintenance and improvements.
The District also provides recycled water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. DSRSD has
been aggressive in encouraging and requiring the use of recycled water. In November 2010,
DSRSD added to its regulatory code Section 3.20.110, Duty to Connect – Recycled Water. This
section requires new development to use recycled water for irrigation except under specific
conditions. Compliance is required if an applicant is to receive potable water service from
DSRSD. The proposed Project will use recycled water for all outdoor water use, including
irrigation, and the recycled water line will be extended down Martinelli Way to serve the site.
DSRSD also provides financial incentives for using recycled water. Developers do not pay Zone
7 water connection fees for their connections to DSRSD’s recycled water system and recycled
water rates are 11 percent less than potable water rates. New development within the Eastern
Dublin area has been required to install dual water systems and a recycled water distribution
system has been installed within the major streets, including Dublin Boulevard. A recycled water
pipeline is present in Martinelli Way near the Project site, and recycled water is available to
serve the Project once that line is extended as will be conditioned by the project approvals. The
City of Dublin also has Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for
irrigation (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.88).
DSRSD’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan was adopted by the DSRSD Board of
Directors in June 2011(DSRSD UWMP). It is based on Zone 7’s 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (Zone 7 UWMP). Both the DSRSD UWMP and Zone 7 UWMP include a
projection of future potable and recycled water supply and demand through the year 2035. The
DSRSD UWMP and Zone 7 UWMP are incorporated herein by reference and are available for
public review at the City Public Works Department during normal business hours. The analysis
of water supply and demand for the DSRSD service area relies on these most recent UWMPs as
permitted under CEQA.
Potable Water. By contract, Zone 7 is DSRSD’s sole potable water supplier. The current
contract between Zone 7 and DSRSD was entered into on August 23, 1994 and has a 30-year
term. The current contract is expected to be renewed beyond 2024, with substantially similar
provisions (source Stan Kolodzie, 4/14/14). Zone 7 uses a combination of water supplies and
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 120
water storage facilities to meet DSRSD’s water demands.
Zone 7’s water supply sources include the following: State Water Project (SWP), Table A and
Yuba accord, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID), and local runoff from Arroyo Del Valle
(which is stored in Lake Del Valle). Zone 7 also uses the local underground aquifer basin as
storage and another source of water (the Main Basin).
The DSRSD UWMP estimates the amount of supply available from Zone 7 in the short-term and
long-term, beginning in 2015 and ending in 2035. The UWMP analyzes available supply during
normal water years, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. It includes projected
water supply under two scenarios: (1) with Zone 7 planned projects and programs implemented;
and (2) with Zone 7 planned projects and programs not implemented. In the DSRSD UWMP, all
of Zone 7’s customers, including the water retailers in the Livermore-Amador Valley, are
assumed to proportionally share the impacts of the shortages during dry water years.
Recycled Water. DSRSD’s water supply contract with Zone 7 allows it to pursue recycled water
opportunities. DSRSD currently produces and distributes recycled water in its service area.
DSRSD owns and operates recycled water treatment facilities (RWTF) at its wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). To maximize the beneficial use of recycled water, DSRSD and East
Bay Municipal Utility District formed a joint powers authority, DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled
Water Authority (DERWA), in 1995. DERWA operates the recycled water transmission system
that supplies recycled water from DSRSD’s RWTF to portions of DSRSD’s and EBMUD’s
service areas.
DSRSD expects to increase DERWA deliveries as recycled water demands in its service area and
EBMUD’s service area increase. The total wastewater volume collected and treated at the
WWTP includes wastewater from both DSRSD’s service area and the City of Pleasanton, which
DSRSD treats by contract. The total volume of recycled water produced includes recycled water
for DERWA deliveries to both DSRSD and EBMUD.
The DSRSD UWMP projects the following amounts of recycled water supply available for its
service area in the following timeframes:
2015 2,500 area feet per year (afy)
2020 3,800 afy
2025 4,400 afy
2030 4,500 afy
3035 4,600 afy
Overall, the DSRSD water supply projections for 2015 – 2035 are set forth in Table 4.4-1,
below.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 121
Table 4.4-2. DSRSD Water Supply
Water Source 2015 2020 2015 2030 2015
Water Purchased from
Zone 7 Water Agency,
af/yr(a)
12,255 15,355 16,855 17,655 17,855
Groundwater Pumped by
Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf,
af/yr(a)
645 645 645 645 645
DSRSD Recycled Water,
af/yr(a) 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Total, af/yr 15,400 19,800 21,900 22,800 23,100
Source: DSRSD, 2014
Reliability of Water Supply to Meet Demand. Water supply reliability is discussed in detail in
the DSRSD UWMP. Maximizing water supply resources and minimizing dependence on
imported water are important strategic goals of Zone 7 and DSRSD. DSRSD’s potable water
supply comes solely from Zone 7, which depends on imported surface water for over 80 percent
of its supply. To minimize demand for this imported water, DSRSD has implemented an
extensive water conservation program and plans to maintain its efforts, including continuing to
expand the use of recycled water within its service area.
Potable Water Supply Reliability.
Zone 7 Reliability Policy
The most recent reliability policy was adopted by the Zone 7 Board of Directors on October 17,
2012, and includes the following level of service goals:
1. Meet 85 percent of M&I water demands 99 percent of the time;
2. Meet 100 percent of M&I water demands 90 percent of the time; and
3. Meet at least 80 percent of the maximum month demand during an extended
unplanned outage.
This reliability policy is different than the policy in place at time of adoption of the Zone 7
UWMP and DSRSD UWMP. Previously, Zone 7’s Reliability Policy was to meet 100% of its
customers’ potable water need under specified hydrologic conditions. The 2012 Reliability
Policy lowered the 100% reliability standard. However, it does not change the amount of water
supply available to the retailers under Normal, Single Dry, or Multiple Dry water years. Rather,
it provides Zone 7 with the additional flexibility and time necessary to evaluate, develop, and
implement cost effective solutions necessary to allow Zone 7 to continue to provide a reliable,
high quality water supply to its customers in the face of any future uncertainty in water supply.
Changing the third goal to reflect a prolonged outage on the maximum month instead of the
maximum day should allow Zone 7 to develop more cost effective solutions to major, prolonged
outages, while also providing the time necessary to communicate with and obtain a response
from its customers (the water retailers).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 122
Zone 7 Water Supply Reliability
As part of Zone 7 UWMP, the projected water supplies during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple
Dry water years were compared with its customers’ demand scenarios, both without potential
water conservation (“high water demand”) and with potential water conservation (“low water
demand”) associated with the Water Conservation Act of 2009. The results of this analysis are
excerpted from Section 16 of Zone 7 UWMP and summarized below.
Under Normal water years in the short-term, through 2015, Zone 7 has sufficient supply to meet
projected water demands, with or without additional conservation measures, assuming Zone 7
can successfully implement planned programs and projects. Note that a portion of the water
demand during a Normal water year includes the storage of water supply for use during dry
water years. The maximum potential shortage in the long-term, based on the high water demand
scenario, could be as high as 10,500 afy between 2020 and 2030 if Zone 7 cannot implement
planned programs and projects.
Under Single Dry years, Zone 7 does not expect shortages through 2030 with the implementation
of planned programs and projects. The maximum potential shortage, based on the high water
demand scenario, could be as high as 8,700 afy between 2020 and 2030 if Zone 7 cannot
implement planned programs and projects. The maximum potential shortage during Single Dry
water years is lower than that for Normal water years, because Zone 7 makes use of its stored
water distributed between the local groundwater basin and the banking programs in Kern
County.
Finally, under Multiple Dry water years, planned programs and projects have similarly been
designed to prevent any shortages. Zone 7’s analysis indicates that, without such programs and
projects, shortages of up to 36,000 afy can be expected under a Multiple Dry water year scenario
ending in 2030, based on the high water demand scenario.
Zone 7 also is aggressively developing a strategy via its 2011 Water Supply Evaluation (2011
WSE) for providing a reliable, high quality water supply that will meet the needs of the
Livermore Amador Valley through buildout of adopted general plans.
Zone 7 2013 Annual Review
Zone 7 prepares annual reviews on water supply and programs. The most recent annual review
was completed in 2013 (2013 Annual Review). The conclusions of the 2013 Annual Review are
summarized below and incorporated herein by reference. The 2013 Annual Review concludes
that Zone 7 has sufficient water supplies to meet projected demands over the next five years with
or without water conservation measures. The 2013 Annual Review notes that water demand over
the next five-year period is anticipated to increase from 50,400 afy to 52,700 afy in 2017, with or
without water conservation. Imposition of water conservation measures would decrease
estimated water use by approximately 8.3% during the same time period. Zone 7’s long-term
water supply remains at some risk due to certain factors, including court rulings and biological
opinions associated with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and climate change. In response to
such uncertainty, Zone 7 continues to investigate and implement the recommendations of the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 123
2011 WSE. As recommended in the 2011 WSE, Zone 7 is moving forward and evaluating a set
of actions to minimize the risk of water supply shortages, including: working with the local water
supply retailers to develop additional water conservation savings and recycled water programs;
continuing to implement the Well Master Plan and Chain of Lakes projects; confirming water
supply available from the existing contract with BBID; minimizing or reusing brine losses from
the existing Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plan; reducing unaccounted-for water; and
enhancing Zone 7’s existing in-lieu recharge program. In addition, Zone 7 is evaluating several
major water supply portfolios, which include the Current Plan (i.e., Delta Fix), an In-Valley
Portfolio (i.e., focused on recycled water), and an Intertie Portfolio (i.e., water transfers or
regional desalination).
DSRSD
DSRSD Water Supply Reliability
Zone 7 is DSRSD’s sole potable water supplier. In analyzing the reliability of DSRSD’s potable
water supply, DSRSD calculated the percentage of possible water shortage if Zone 7’s planned
programs and projects are implemented, and if they are not implemented. Without
implementation, Zone 7’s customers will experience water supply shortages. All of Zone 7’s
customers, including the water retailers in the Livermore Amador Valley, are assumed to
proportionally share the impacts of the shortages. DSRSD’s potable water supply reliability for
Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years is shown on Tables B, C, and D. Each Table
analyzes two scenarios: (1) Zone 7 planned projects and programs are implemented; and (2)
Zone 7 planned projects and programs are not implemented.
In Table 4.4-3 DSRSD’s potable water demand is compared to Zone 7’s water supply during a
Normal water year. If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented, DSRSD
anticipates no water supply shortage. However, if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are
not implemented, DSRSD anticipates shortage of approximately 3 percent starting 2030. A slight
increase in shortage is expected by 2035; however, the water shortage remains under 4 percent.
Table 4.4-3. DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Normal Year (AF)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply
Totals(a)
12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%0% 0%
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs NOT Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply
Totals(a,b)
12,900 16,000 17,500 17,711 17,857
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 -589 -643
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 124
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%-3.32% -3.60%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%-3.22% -3.48%
Recycled Water
DSRSD Supply Totals(c) 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0% 0%0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0% 0%0%
Includes DSRSD’s 645 af/yr GPQ pumped by Zone 7 and blended with Zone 7’s other water supply sources. Rounded up to nearest
100 af.
Assumes that water supply shortage is shared equally amongst water retailers supplied by Zone 7.
Recycled water from DSRSD’s RWTF.
In Table 4.4-4, DSRSD’s potable water demand is compared to Zone 7’s water supply during a
Single Dry water year. In a Single Dry water year, Zone 7 makes use of its stored water
distributed between the local groundwater basin and the banking programs in Kern County.
Overall, Zone 7 water demands are lower for the year because water demand that is normally for
groundwater storage banking is not included in the water demands in a Single Dry water year. If
Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented, DSRSD anticipates no water supply
shortage. However, if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented, DSRSD
anticipates a shortage of approximately one percent starting 2035.
Table 4.4-4. DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Single Dry Year (AF)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a) 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%0% 0%
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs NOT Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a,b) 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,128 18,326
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 -172 -174
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%-1% -0.95%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%-1% -0.94%
Recycled Water
DSRSD Supply Totals(c) 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%0% 0%
(a) INCLUDES DSRSD’S 645 AF/YR GPQ PUMPED BY ZONE 7 AND BLENDED WITH ZONE 7’S OTHER WATER SUPPLY SOURCES.
ROUNDED UP TO NEAREST 100 AF.
(b) ASSUMES THAT WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE IS SHARED EQUALLY AMONGST WATER RETAILERS SUPPLIED BY ZONE 7.
(c) RECYCLED WATER FROM DSRSD’S RWTF.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 125
In Table 4.4-5, DSRSD’s potable water demands are compared to Zone 7’s water supply during
Multiple Dry water year events. If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented,
DSRSD anticipates no water supply shortage. However, if Zone 7’s planned programs and
projects are not implemented, water shortages may occur as follows:
• For a Multiple Dry water year event that starts in 2025, DSRSD will receive 100
percent of its total potable demand in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable
demand in the second year, and 72 percent of its total potable water demand (28
percent water shortage) in the third year;
• For a Multiple Dry water year event that starts in 2030, DSRSD will receive 98
percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year,
100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total
potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year;
• For a Multiple Dry water year event that starts in 2035, DSRSD will receive 98
percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year,
100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total
potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year.
Zone 7 plans to implement programs and projects to meet its customers’ demands in Multiple
Dry water years. However, if Zone 7 is unable to implement those programs and projects,
DSRSD may have to implement its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan, as described
below.
Table 4.4-5. DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-
Multiple Dry Years (AF)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Implemented
Multiple dry year
first year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals1 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
second year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals1 13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
third year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals1 14,800 16,900 18,000 18,400 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 14,800 16,900 18,000 18,400 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Not Implemented
Multiple dry year
first year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals
1,2
12,900 16,000 17,500 17,994 18,133
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 -306 -367
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% -1.70% -2.02%
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 126
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% -1.67% -1.98
Multiple dry year
second year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals
1,2
13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
third year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals
1,2
14,800 16,900 12,880 12,620 12,676
DSRSD Demand Totals 14,800 16,900 18,000 18,400 18,500
Difference 0 0 -5,120 -5,780 -5,824
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% -39.8 -45.8% -45.9%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% -28.4 -31.4% -31.5%
Recycled Water
Multiple dry year
first year supply
DSRSD Supply Totals 3 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
second year supply
DSRSD Supply Totals 3 2,800 3,900 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,800 3,900 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
third year supply
DSRSD Supply Totals 3 3,300 4,200 4,500 4,600 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 3,300 4,200 4,500 4,600 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1 INCLUDES DSRSD’S 645 ACRE-FT/YEAR GPQ PUMPED BY ZONE 7 AND BLENDED WITH ZONE 7’S OTHER
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES. ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST 100 ACRE-FT.
2 ASSUMES THAT WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGES IS SHARED EQUALLY AMONGST WATER RETAILERS SUPPLIED BY
ZONE 7. SEE APPENDIX O FOR DETERMINATION OF SHORTAGES.
3 RECYCLED WATER FROM DSRSD’S RWTF.
Source: DSRSD Water Supply Reliability Plans
DSRSD has developed plans to address water reliability issues and potential future water
shortages. These include a Water Shortage Contingency Plan and a Drought Plan and Demand
Management Measures.
The Water Shortage Contingency Plan addresses events that cause a serious interruption in the
normal water supply, including, but not limited to, drought, earthquake, major power outages,
and similar events. The Contingency Plan establishes four stages to address water supply
shortages:
A Stage 1 Level is to be implemented when there is a reasonable probability of less-
than-expected water delivery to DSRSD in the next few years. A voluntary 5% or
greater water cut-back is requested.
A Stage 2 Level is to be implemented when there is a reasonable probability of less-
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 127
than-expected water delivery in the upcoming year. A voluntary or mandatory 15%
or greater water cut-back is imposed.
Stage 3 Level would be triggered if normal water supplies to DSRSD are reduced in
the current year. A Stage 3 Level triggers a 30% or greater water cut-back.
A Stage 4 Level would be imposed when water shortage conditions have been in
effect and water reduction targets imposed under Stages 1 through 3 have not been
achieved to maintain an adequate water supply or when new events require greater
water conservation efforts. Under a Stage 4 Level, a water cut-back of 50% or more is
mandated by DSRSD.
DSRSD also has adopted Demand Management Measures to reduce water demand through water
conservation measures. DSRSD has been a member of the California Urban Water Conservation
Council (CUWCC) since 1991 and is an original signatory to the Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (CUWCC MOU). DSRSD
has been implementing various Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation since
1991, and has been submitting biennial reports to the CUWCC since 1992. DSRSD’s water
conservation program includes the Demand Management Measures (DMMs). Its current
conservation efforts and rates were established to address varying hydrological conditions
(droughts) that occur from year to year. Because customers modified their water consumption
behavior when the DSRSD Board of Directors declared Stage 1 water shortage conditions in
2009, DSRSD currently meets and exceeds the 2020 urban water use target of 163 GPCD. The
list of BMPs is set forth in Section 6 of the DSRSD UWMP and is incorporated herein by this
reference.
On January 19, 2014, the DSRSD Board of Directors declared a Community Drought
Emergency and called for a 20% reduction on the amount of water use compared to the same
period in 2013. This includes a 5% reduction in the amount of indoor water use and a 40%
reduction in the amount of outdoor water use. Zone 7 also asked all customers in the Livermore-
Amador Valley to reduce water use by 20 percent due to drought conditions. Zone 7 identified
specific steps that customers could take to reduce water use with reductions in outdoor water use
presenting the greatest opportunity for reductions - http://www.zone7water.com/conservation-
rebates/water-conservation.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the
Specific Plan area. Mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 addresses possible salinity in the groundwater
basin. Mitigation measures 3.5/24.0–40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water
resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD; to minimize the
effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by
encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies; and to ensure the development of a
water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are
constructed by developers. Other mitigations (3.5/41.0–43.0) were adopted to deal with the
potential for reservoir failures, the potential for loss of system pressure, and noise from water
system pump stations. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern Dublin General Plan and
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 128
EDSP would increase demand to serve development at build-out under the then-applicable
general plans and required an additional 25,000 acre-feet annually. Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0
relied on Zone 7’s planning to acquire additional supplies. Impact 3.5/S found a lack of a water
distribution system and required a “will serve” letter prior to grading permit (mitigation measure
3.5/3.8.0). Impact 3.5/T, Inducement of Substantial Growth, was deemed to be significant even
after mitigation. Upon approval of the GPA/EDSP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53–93).
No supplemental impacts to water resources were analyzed in the IKEA SEIR.
Regulatory framework. Water services to Dublin and the Project site are governed by the
following documents.
Dublin General Plan. The Dublin General Plan includes the Environmental Resources
Management: Water Resources Element. The purpose of this optional Element is to “ensure that
the City’s water resources are sustained and protected and to consolidate information and
policies related to the conservation and management of water resources...” (page 12-1). The
Element contains the following Guiding and Implementing Policies related to water resources.
• Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A: Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water
supply for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin.
• Implementing Policy 12.3.1.B: In anticipated of planned Future growth, continue
working with DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide sufficient water supplies.
• Guiding Policy 12.3.3.A: Promote the conservation of water in new development.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The EDSP includes Goals, Policies and Action Programs
to guide cooperation between the City, the DSRSD and the project developers in providing an
adequate water supply system for all new development in Eastern Dublin (Policy 9-1). Action
Program 9A within the EDSP requires new development projects in the EDSP planning area to
maximize water conservation by using water-conservation devices such as low-flow shower
heads, adhering to DSRSD Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation,
installing water efficient irrigation systems, using native, drought tolerant plant materials and
using recycled water for dust control during individual project construction.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City of Dublin adopted a CAP in 2010 and
completed a major update to this document in July 2013. The CAP provides a local inventory of
estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) from the City currently and in the future. The CAP
also includes strategies to be employed by the City to reduce community emissions by 15%
below the 2010 GHG inventory by the year 2020.
The CAP includes specific measures to achieve the emission reduction target. Strategy B.3.1
calls for use of Bay-friendly landscaping in new developments. This strategy includes an
integrated solution to new landscaping that reduced water use, promotes soil health, reduced
green waste, and results in a net reduction of GHG emissions.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 129
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.88 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). Chapter 8.88 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires water efficient landscape installations for new construction and
rehabilitated landscapes for both public and private development projects.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project envisions a different development pattern than was assumed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR. This SEIR examines whether water use related to potential
development of the project area might differ significantly from that previously analyzed and
whether there is a reasonable likelihood that water would be available to serve the Project.
Significance criteria. Implementation of the Project would be considered to have a significant
impact on water supply and distribution if it were to:
require or result in the need to construct new water facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or
have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources and require new or expanded entitlements or resources.
Under CEQA standards, the EIR must analyze the “reasonable likelihood” that adequate water
supply will be available to serve the Project and other water demand under near-term and long-
term conditions. The “reasonably likely” finding does not require certainty of future water
supplies through signed, enforceable agreements with providers and already built or approved
facilities. An EIR must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood
of the water’s availability. “Paper water,” speculative sources or unrealistic allocations are not
“reasonably likely” sources under CEQA. Uncertainty in the form of competition for identified
water sources is an important point that should be discussed, but it does not necessarily render
development of the planned water supply too unlikely. It is not necessary that the EIR show that
total water supply in the long-term would be sufficient to meet total demand, but a discussion of
total supply and demand is necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of development on
water supply.
A level of uncertainty regarding the availability of water supplies does not require a finding of a
significant impact. However, the EIR must provide decision makers with information to evaluate
the sources of water for the Project and their impacts. The EIR can rely on and incorporate
analysis of the impacts from water sources performed by the water purveyors. The analysis of
replacement or alternative sources is only required if it is impossible to confidently determine
that anticipated future water sources will not be available. As long as an EIR discloses potential
uncertainties and contains substantial evidence demonstrating that water supplies will likely be
available in the future despite uncertainties, an EIR is not required to identify and analyze
alternative water supplies.
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
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 130
per day at full build-out. The proposed project would generate an estimated need for 52,000
gallons of potable water per day, which would be an estimated 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 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 gpd/sq ft 500 gpd
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condo/Townhouse 400 DU 120 gpd/DU 48,000 gpd
Est. Water Demand. 52,000 gpd
Difference +21,500 gpd
Source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 4/13/2014
Construction of the proposed project would increase estimated potable water demand by 21,500
gallons per day (24.08 acre feet per year). This is an increase in water demand assumed in the
DSRSD UWMP for Dublin and surrounding communities served by DSRSD and Zone 7. This
amount of water (24.08 afy) constitutes only 0.13% of DSRSD’s long-term potable water supply
of 18,500 afy, and .03% of the lowest annual available water supply of 72,326 afy, contained in
the Zone 7 UWMP.
DSRSD has determined that potable water is available for overall water demand within its
service area, including this Project, until at least 2018 with or without water conservation
measures (2013 Annual Review). The incremental increase in potable water demand is relatively
small and DSRSD does not believe that the increase would have a significant impact on the
District’s ability to provide water supplies to its customers in this area (Source: Stan Kolozdie,
DSRSD, 3/27/14). DSRSD also will not issue construction permits for the proposed Project if
there is not available water, in accordance with DSRSD Code Section 6.2.01. So, the proposed
project will not be allowed to begin construction under DSRSD regulations unless there is
adequate water to serve Project demand. At the time of collection of connection fees and
issuance of a construction permit, a connection to the DSRSD water supply system would be
made and water provided to the project in accordance with DSRSD regulations. Additionally,
Mitigation Measure 3.5/38 in the Eastern Dublin EIR requires a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD
prior to grading permit approval. A “will serve” letter was provided for the previous Ikea project
and new letter will be required for this proposed project in the Conditions of Approval for the
Tentative Map.
Based on the above discussion, adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demand
(including the proposed project) are reasonably likely. Zone 7 has potential greater supply under
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 131
existing contracts and potential new sources of supply are being pursued by Zone 7. DSRSD also
has existing water supplies available under its contract with BMID, and recycled water and
additional conservation measures that could be implemented which could be used to meet project
and cumulative demand. Both Zone 7 and DSRSD have implemented such conservation
measures in response to the current drought.
In addition, a 20% reduction in indoor water use for new development mandated under the State
Green Building Code was not taken into account in the demand estimates under the Zone 7
UWMP and DSRSD UWMP. The State Green Building Code requires a 20% reduction in indoor
water use in new residential development beginning in 2014. This requirement will apply to all
residential building for which building permits are issued after January 1, 2014 and will apply to
the proposed Project. A similar 20% reduction for non-residential development become
mandatory in the 2010 State Green Building Code.
Zone 7 and DSRSD also have current water conservations measures that are in effect during
droughts and may be expanded to address shortages resulting from other causes. Both Zone 7
and DSRSD have programs to address drought conditions during multi-dry year. DSRSD has
specific measures and programs to reduce demand during drought conditions as set forth in its
Water Shortage Contingency Plan and Demand Management Measures described above. Under a
Stage 4 Level, a reduction of 50% or more in water use may be mandated by DSRSD. This
reduction in demand greatly exceeds any projected shortfalls in the DSRSD UWMP.
With regard to the increase in demand for recycled water in the near-term and long-term,
DSRSD has a sufficient supply to meet anticipated demand and has the ability to increase the
supply of recycled water in the future. A recycled water distribution main is located adjacent to
the project property. There is a sufficient supply of recycled water available to serve project and
cumulative demand and a less-than-significant impact would result with regard to recycled water
supply.
Based on the foregoing, water supplies are reasonably likely to be available to serve the proposed
project and existing demand in the near-term, and project and cumulative demand in the long-
term. Therefore, the proposed project impact is less than significant. The project contribution to
any significant cumulative impact is less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than
significant. Since water supplies are reasonably likely, the EIR is not required to analyze
alternative sources of water.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 132
4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section provides information on the biological resources on The Green project site.
Biological resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.7 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program
EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area. Further analysis
regarding biological resources was included in the IKEA SEIR.
The purpose of this section is to supplement the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA SEIR in
accordance with CEQA standards.
The following analysis is based on a report dated August 30, 2013, prepared by WRA Biological
Consultants. The WRA report is included as Appendix 8.5 of this SEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project site characteristics. The project site is located in an urban area that consists of a
patchwork of developed commercial and residential areas interspersed with undeveloped, open
areas. Adjacent to the project site to the north and west are private open spaces dominated by
non-native annual grassland and non-native mustards. Adjacent to the east is the Hacienda
Crossings commercial center, and to the south is Interstate 580. A majority of the site is
characterized by non-native annual grassland with occasional stands of non-native mustard. The
site is relatively flat, sloping downward from north to south. The elevation ranges from
approximately 350 feet in the north to approximately 340 feet in the south. The project site has
been graded and some areas have been piled and excavated. As a result, minor topographic
variation occurs, sometimes as obvious depressions and plateaus. Based on satellite imagery
(Exhibit 4.4-1) and existing vegetation, it appears that some limited parts of the site experience
prolonged inundation during part of the year and have the potential to be wetland habitat
The majority of the project site was recently mowed, though no other recent activity is evident.
One building currently exists on the site, which was used for past marketing efforts and will be
removed at the time the site is developed. Ornamental olive trees in containers are located around
the building; most are living but in poor health. Several large piles of debris exist in the western
portion of the site.
Biological communities. Table 4.4-1 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 potentially sensitive biological
community is found in the project area. Descriptions for each biological community are
contained in the following sections.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 133
Table 4.5-1. Summary of Biological Communities on the Project Site
Community Type Acres
Non-native annual grassland 25.53
Ruderal herbaceous stands 2.26
Potential seasonal wetlands 1.17
Source: WRA, 2013
Non-Sensitive Biological Communities
Non-Native Annual Grassland. Non-native annual grassland typically occurs in open areas of
valleys and foothills throughout California, usually on fine textured clay or loam soils that are
somewhat poorly drained. Non-native grassland is typically dominated by non-native annual
grasses and forbs along with scattered native wildflowers. Non-native annual grassland
comprises the majority of the site and is a mix of grasses and other herbaceous species. Common
species include slender oat (Avena barbata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome
(Bromus diandrus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis [Lolium multiflorum]), mouse barley
(Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), stink wort (Dittrichia graveolens) and redstem stork’s bill
(Erodium cicutarium). Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is sparsely scattered throughout the
site. Native plant cover is less than 10%.
Ruderal Herbaceous Stands. Ruderal herbaceous stands are located in areas where there has been
recent or repeated disturbance. These communities are dominated by non-native herbaceous
species adapted to growing in conditions of disturbance. Ruderal herbaceous stands dominated
by black mustard (Brassica nigra) occur primarily in the southwest portion of the site on a variety
of topographic features.
Sensitive Biological Communities
Seasonal Wetland. Seasonal wetland plant communities occur in swales and depressions that are
ponded during the rainy season for sufficient duration to support vegetation adapted to wetland
conditions. Seasonal wetlands in California are highly variable in plant composition, depending
on the length of ponding or inundation. There are four potential seasonal wetlands on the site,
totaling 1.17 acres. All appear to exist as a result of past alterations to the landscape, but have
existed long enough to be dominated by plants often found in seasonal wetlands. Typical plant
species observed in potential seasonal wetlands on the site include hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum
hyssopifolia), pygmy willowherb (Epilobium campestre [E. pygmaeum]), doormat knotweed
(Polygonum aviculare [P. arenastrum]), and popcornflower (Plagiobothrys sp.).
Special-Status Species.
Plants. Based upon a review of the resources and databases, 35 special-status plant species have
been documented in the vicinity of the project site. Appendix B (contained in the full biological
analysis, SEIR Appendix 8.7) summarizes the potential for occurrence for each special-status
plant species occurring in the vicinity of the site. One special-status plant species, Congdon’s
tarplant, was observed on the site during the assessment site visit. No other special-status plant
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 134
species have a high or moderate potential to occur on the project site. The remaining species
documented to occur in the vicinity of the site are unlikely, have no potential to occur, or were
not found during the August 1, 2013 survey by WRA. Congdon’s tarplant is discussed below.
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). CNPS Rank 1B.1. Present.
Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from
June to November. It occurs in terraces, swales, floodplains, grassland, and disturbed sites,
sometimes alkaline, at elevations ranging from 0-990 feet (Baldwin et al. 2012, CDFW 2013,
CNPS 2013). Congdon’s tarplant is known from 31 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in
Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo,
and Solano counties (CNPS 2013). Congdon’s tarplant occurs in abundance on the site. A
few individuals were scattered in the east half of the site, but thousands occurred in the west
half.
Wildlife. Twenty-six special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the
site. Appendix B (contained in the full biological analysis) summarizes the potential for each of
these species to occur on the project site. All of the wildlife species observed in the site are
commonly found species, and many are adapted to occupying disturbed or urban areas. One
special-status wildlife species was observed on the project site during the site assessment. In
addition, there are no special-status wildlife species that have a high potential to occur on the
site, but four special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur on the site.
Special-status wildlife species that were observed or have a moderate potential to occur on the
project site are discussed below.
Present species
White tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. Present. White-
tailed kite occurs in low elevation grassland, agricultural, wetland, oak woodland, and
savannah habitats. Riparian zones adjacent to open areas are also used. Vegetative structure
and prey availability seem to be more important than specific associations with plant species
or vegetative communities. Lightly grazed or ungrazed fields generally support large prey
populations and are often preferred to other habitats. Kites primarily feed on small mammals,
although, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects are also taken. Nest trees range from single
isolated trees to trees within large contiguous forests. Preferred nest trees are extremely
variable, ranging from small shrubs (less than 10 ft. tall), to large trees (greater than 150 ft.
tall). At the time of the August 2013 site visit, a kite was seen foraging over the site. The
grassland areas on the site provide foraging habitat for this species and the trees planted
along the medians of the roads surrounding the project site may provide nesting habitat
during the breeding season.
Species with moderate potential to occur
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). CDFW Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential.
Burrowing owl (BUOW) is a ground-dwelling owl found throughout most of California and
the western United States. In California, it occurs either as a resident or winter visitor.
BUOW inhabit flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub-lands. This species
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 135
prefers annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub
canopies and short vegetation; however, it also colonizes agricultural and other developed
areas including; debris piles, old pipes, airports, golf courses, vacant lots and agricultural
fields. This species is dependent on burrowing mammals to provide the burrows that are
characteristically used for shelter and nesting, and in northern California is typically found in
close association with California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Breeding
typically takes place from March to July.
The project site provides suitable habitat for BUOW, as it contains disked ruderal grassland
with many ground squirrel burrows. Furthermore, the CDFW CNDDB has several recorded
occurrences of BUOW less than two miles from the site, the closest being approximately
0.15 mile north of the site. At the time of the August 2013 site visit, no BUOW or signs of
BUOW (e.g. feathers, pellets, feces, or nest decoration) were observed. However, due to the
habitat suitability and documented occurrences of this species nearby, there is a moderate
potential for burrowing owl to move into and occur on the site.
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). California Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential.
Pallid bat is found from southern British Columbia and Montana to central Mexico, and east
to Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Roosts are typically in rock crevices, tree hollows, mines,
caves, and a variety of man-made structures, including vacant and occupied buildings. Tree
roosting has been documented and they have also been reported roosting in stacks of burlap
sacks and stone piles. Pallid bat may use the marketing building on the site to roost, and may
forage within the site, giving the species a moderate potential to occur in the site.
Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).CDFW Species of Special Concern.
Moderate Potential. This species ranges throughout western North America, from British
Columbia to central Mexico. It is typically associated with caves but is also found in man-
made structures, including mines and buildings. This bat may forage over the site and use the
building on the site to roost, thus having a moderate potential to occur on the project site.
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). BLM Sensitive Species. Moderate Potential. Yuma myotis
is found throughout most of California at lower elevations in a wide variety of habitats. Day
roosts are found in buildings, trees, mines, caves, bridges, and rock crevices. Night roosts
are usually associated with buildings, bridges or other man-made structures. The existing
marketing building on the site may provide night roosting habitat and the bat may use the site
for foraging. Therefore, there is a moderate potential for Yuma myotis to occur on the site.
Listed species unlikely to occur. Federally listed species that are documented to occur within the
vicinity of the site include:
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Federal Endangered Species. San Joaquin kit
fox is found in the San Joaquin Valley and in surrounding foothills, from Alameda County
east to Stanislaus County. It is a desert-adapted species which occurs mainly in arid, flat
grasslands, scrublands, and alkali meadows where the vegetation structure is relatively short
(generally less than 1.5 feet tall). This species uses dens year-round and needs loose-textured
soils suitable for burrowing. Kit fox prey consists primarily of kangaroo rats and other small
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 136
rodents, as well as large insects and occasionally rabbits. San Joaquin kit fox has been
extirpated from much of its historic range and is now only found in the southern and eastern
portions of its historic range and a study by Sproul and Flett indicates that the species is
absent west of the Altamont Hills, which includes the project site.
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). Federal Threatened Species. California red-
legged frog (CRLF) occurs in isolated localities in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast and
northern Transverse Ranges but is still common in the San Francisco Bay Area and along the
central coast. CRLF breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby riparian vegetation
associated with deep, still or slow moving water. Estivation and dispersal habitat may consist
of riparian vegetation, presence of small mammal burrows, and continuous connective
stretches of grassland, wetland or oak woodland habitat. On average, CRLF tend to disperse
a mile away from breeding sites. CRLF are unlikely to occur in or around the project site.
The site does not contain any riparian vegetation, and is surrounded by urban development
and surrounded on all sides by paved roads at least 80 feet wide, which act as barriers to
dispersal. There are no apparent accessible breeding features within two miles of the site, and
according to satellite imagery the site has had a history of disturbance and has been graded
multiple times. The nearest CNDDB occurrence of CRLF to the project site is approximately
1.3 miles to the east, and there are several occurrences within four miles. Most of these
occurrences are prior to 2005, when much of the area to the east of the site was undeveloped.
Dense urban development and other land use changes over the past ten years have very likely
decreased the habitat suitability of the immediate area and rendered it much less suitable for
CRLF dispersal. For these reasons, it is unlikely that CRLF will occur on the site or move to
the site.
California tiger salamander (Ambystomacaliforniense). Federal Endangered/State
Threatened Species. California tiger salamander (CTS) inhabits valley and foothill grasslands
and the grassy understory of open woodlands, usually within one mile of water. Currently,
six distinct populations are known to inhabit areas including; the Central Valley and Sierra
Nevada foothills; Yolo County south to Tulare County; and the coastal valleys and foothills
from Sonoma County south to Santa Barbara County. Adult salamanders spend most of their
time underground in upland subterranean refugia, usually in small mammal burrows. During
the first rainfall events of the year, adult CTS emerge and migrate to breed and lay eggs in
ponds, depressional pools, vernal pools and other wetlands. CTS are unlikely to occur on the
project site, as the surrounding roads and development prevent dispersal. As in the case of
CRLF, there are no evident breeding features accessible to CTS within two miles of the site
and the site has already undergone disturbance with repeated grading activities.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). Federal Threatened Species. Vernal pool
fairy shrimp are endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, central coast mountains, and
south coast mountains. They inhabit a variety of different vernal pool habitats, from small,
clear sandstone rock pools to large, turbid, alkaline, grassland valley floor pools. Shrimp can
also be found in natural and artificial wetlands including stock ponds, ditches, and ephemeral
drainages (Helm 1997). This species is unlikely to occur on the site due to the lack of vernal
pool habitat and the area’s history of repeated disking, grading and leveling.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 137
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS CEQA DOCUMENTS
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat
and wildlife resources in the EIR planning area. The EIR identified potential impacts related to
the general effects of potential development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss,
indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and
loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/A, B, and C). The Eastern Dublin EIR also
identified potential impacts related to wildlife species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, CRLF,
CTS, and others (Impacts 3.7/D – S). Raptor electrocutions associated with proposed high-
voltage power lines were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and included a
number of mitigation measures (MM 3.7/26.0a-d). Mitigation measures were adopted to, among
other things, prepare resource management plans, avoid development in sensitive areas, and
revegetate disturbed areas (generally MM 3.7/1.0 – 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed project.
Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP,
the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant unavoidable
impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed cumulative impacts on biological resources within the portions
of Alameda and Contra Costa counties in the general vicinity of the Eastern Dublin area. At that
time, Contra Costa County had an Urban Limit Line that functioned as a growth boundary. That
Urban Limit Line placed all of the Dougherty and Tassajara valleys inside the growth boundary
(i.e., allowing development of those areas), and placed lands to the east of Tassajara Valley and
north of the County line outside the growth boundary. Alameda County had no comparable
growth boundaries; instead, planning for the Alameda County portions of this region was
performed by the cities of Dublin and Livermore.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one significant cumulative biological impact. Impact 3.7/C
identified the continued loss and deterioration of botanically sensitive habitat, particularly
riparian habitat.
IKEA SEIR. The IKEA SEIR identified Supplemental Impact BIO-1, which included potential
impacts to newly-identified biological resources, specifically Congdon’s tarplant, a special-status
plant. No evidence was found at that time that the Congdon’s tarplant species was actually
present on the site so no supplemental mitigation measures were included in the IKEA SEIR.
REGULATORY SETTING
Biological resources are regulated by the following:
Federal Endangered Species Act. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed
wildlife species from harm or “take” which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also
include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury to a listed
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 138
wildlife species. An activity can be defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental.
Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species
are legally protected from take under FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the project
requires a federal action, such as a Section 404 fill permit.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened
and endangered species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and
candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under the FESA, but may
become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project.
California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits
the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or
endangered. In accordance with the CESA, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) has jurisdiction over state-listed species (California Fish and Wildlife Code Sec. 2070).
Additionally, the CDFW maintains lists of "species of special concern" that are defined as
species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited
ranges, and/or continuing threats.
California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15380(d) of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of
protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet
certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and
CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered
plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in
which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that
has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW.
Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps is responsible for
regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the U.S. and
their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to
navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the U.S.
are termed “isolated wetlands” and, depending on the circumstances, may not be subject to Corps
jurisdiction.
California Water Quality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs. Pursuant to Section 401 of
the federal Clean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the Corps must obtain water quality
certification from the RWQCB. This certification ensures that the project will uphold state water
quality standards. The RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the Corps does not.
Isolated wetlands that are not jurisdictional under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are
considered waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Act. Discharge of fill into waters of the
State is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements as issued by the RWQCB.
The CDFW exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams according to
provisions of Section 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Wildlife Code. The Fish and Wildlife Code
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 139
requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material within the bed and
banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation.
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 703) prohibits killing, possessing, or
trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Most
native bird species in the project area are covered by this Act.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-governmental conservation organization,
has developed lists of plant species of concern in California. Vascular plants included on these
lists are defined as follows:
List 1A Plants considered extinct.
List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list.
List 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list.
Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory
protection, plants appearing on List 1B or List 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA’s
Section 15380 criteria and adverse effects to these species are considered significant.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in Alameda County
and although as a private development project it is technically not subject to the EACCS
guidance, permitting agencies will utilize the guidance and policies contained in the EACCS to
analyze the project. Conservation goals and objectives are described in Chapter 3 of the Final
EACCS. There are multiple objectives listed in the Conservation Strategy; here are some
objectives that apply directly to the project Area:
Goal 1: Protect and enhance natural and semi‐natural landscapes that are large enough to
accommodate natural processes beneficial to populations of native species.
Objective 1.1: Protect a range of environmental gradients (such as slope, elevation, aspect)
across a diversity of natural communities within the conservation zones.
Objective 1.2: Protect riverine systems and hydrologic function within the study area through
protection and management of terrestrial land covers, streams, ponds, and
wetlands across all watersheds of the study area.
Goal 4: Protect and enhance functional grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald,
California annual grassland, non‐serpentine native bunchgrass grassland, serpentine
bunchgrass grassland, rock outcrop, valley sink scrub) that benefit focal species and promote
native biodiversity.
Objective 4.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of native grasslands
and create a refined map that better accounts for mapped stands.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 140
Goal 8: Improve the overall quality of riparian communities and the hydrologic and geomorphic
processes that support them to increase the amount of riparian habitat for focal species and
promote native biodiversity.
Objective 8.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of riparian forest and
scrub stands and create a refined map that reflects species composition, key
riparian community attributes, and conservation opportunities at the stream
reach level.
Objective 8.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on riparian forest and scrub communities
during project construction and indirect impacts that result from post-project
activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3‐2 and 3‐3
of the EACCS.
Goal 9: Improve the overall quality of wetlands (perennial freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland,
alkali wetland); ponds; and their upland watersheds to maintain functional aquatic communities
that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity.
Objective 9.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of seasonal and
perennial wetlands and create a refined map that reflects habitat quality and
restoration opportunities.
Objective 9.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on wetland or pond communities during
project construction and indirect impacts that result from post-project
activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3‐2 and 3‐3
of the EACCS.
The Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance (City of Dublin Municipal Code Sec. 5.60) states that
preservation of existing trees is beneficial to the health and welfare of the City. Tree removal
permits are required under this section for removal of heritage trees, which are defined in the
ordinance.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria. The project’s impacts to biological resources would be considered
significant if the project results in the actions or outcomes listed below. These significance
criteria are based on the CEQA Guidelines’ (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3) recommended tools for
determining the potential for significant environmental effects, including the model Initial Study
checklist (Appendix G of the Guidelines) and mandatory findings of significance (Guidelines
sec. 15065). The proposed project would have a significant supplemental impact on biological
resources if the following impacts have the potential to occur but were not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the IKEA SEIR, or are substantially more severe than analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the IKEA SEIR:
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 141
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat
modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means;
Supplemental Impacts. The proposed project is expected to develop the entire site. Therefore,
the project would permanently impact all of the approximate 27.5 acres of habitat on the site and
may impact special-status plants, nesting and/or wintering burrowing owls, and nesting birds
protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. For each of the potential impacts
identified, the following avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures are
recommended. Supplemental mitigation measures SM-BIO-3 (Burrowing Owls) are identified
below to update and clarify EDSP mitigation measures in light of current biological regulatory
requirements.
Impacts to jurisdictional waters. Construction of the proposed project would result in disturbance
of the entire site and filling of a small amount of seasonal wetlands that could be potentially
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State. If wetlands are present on the site,
this would be a significant supplemental impact.
Supplemental Impact BIO-1 (wetland and other waters). The proposed project would
result in the fill of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Implementation of the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a
less-than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. The supplemental mitigation
measure requires that if jurisdictional waters are identified on the site and cannot be avoided as
part of the development, compensatory wetlands shall be secured so that no net loss of wetlands
will occur.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 (wetland and other waters). The applicant
shall undertake the following prior to issuance of a grading plan for the site:
a) A wetlands 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)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 142
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.
Impacts to special-status plant species. The proposed project could impact special-status plant
species on the site, specifically Congdon’s tarplant.
Supplemental Impact BIO-2 (impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other special-status plant
species). Approval and construction of the proposed project would impact Congdon’s
tarplant and other special-status plant species on the site (significant supplemental impact
and mitigation required).
Implementation of the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a
less-than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. The supplemental mitigation
measure requires acquisition and preservation of suitable off-site habitat for special-status plant
species prior to site development.
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 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 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.
Burrowing Owls. The proposed project could impact nesting and/or wintering habitat for
burrowing owl. This impact was identified as Impact 3.7/M.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 143
Supplemental Impact BIO-3 (impacts to burrowing owls). The proposed project could
impact the habitat for nesting or wintering burrowing owl by disturbing the existing
ground surface (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced impacts to burrowing
owl to a less-than-significant level. However, adherence to the following supplemental
mitigation measure provides enhanced mitigation that is consistent with current California
Department of Fish and Wildlife standards whereas EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0 is
no longer consistent with these standards. The following measure requires completion of a pre-
construction survey for burrowing owl and, if found, implementation of either an exclusion zone
around nests or development of an exclusion plan with protective buffers. With adherence to the
following mitigation measure, this impact will be less-than-significant.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (impacts to burrowing owls). 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 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
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 144
protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable to the California
Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Impacts to breeding birds. The proposed project could impact nesting birds on the site.
Supplemental Impact BIO-4 (impacts to breeding birds). Construction of the proposed
project could impact breeding birds on the site (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following will reduce impacts to breeding birds that may nest on or
immediately adjacent to the site to a less-than-significant level by requiring prohibiting project
construction during the nesting season. If this cannot be met, a preconstruction survey for nesting
birds shall be completed and, if found, it will be necessary to establish a protective buffer around
identified nests.
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 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.
Impacts to bats. Three special-status bat species have a moderate potential of occurring on the
project site by using the existing marketing building on the site for roosting and/or foraging in
the area. The marketing building is capable of supporting bat roosts. If special status bat species
roosts are present, project development may impact these species either through direct removal
of roosts or nearby disturbance. In addition, an increase in night lighting during the construction
phase of the project may result in disturbance to bat movement and behavior and may be a
potential indirect impact. Loss of potential bat roosts would constitute a significant impact. Bat
foraging habitat on a regional scale is not expected to be significantly impacted by the project.
Supplemental Impact BIO-5 (impacts to special-status bats). Construction of the proposed
project could impact special-status bats that could inhabit the site, specifically the removal
of the existing building (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Adherence to the following will reduce impacts to potential bats on the site by removing the
potential bat habitat at a time when it is not likely to be occupied.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 (impacts to special-status bats). 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.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 145
Cumulative impacts. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that direct habitat loss of implementing the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Impact IM 3.7/A) and loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3.7/C) to be cumulative biological resource
impacts. The proposed project is located within the Eastern Dublin planning area and would
disturb approximately 27.5 acres of vacant land within this area. No new or more severe impacts
with respect to cumulative biological impacts would occur than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. No cumulatively considerable biological resource impacts were identified in the IKEA
SEIR.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 146
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
5
-
2
—
Pl
a
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
D
u
r
i
n
g
a
S
i
t
e
V
i
s
i
t
o
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
,
2
0
1
3
Fa
m
i
l
y
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
In
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
St
a
t
u
s
Ra
r
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Or
i
g
i
n
Form
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Ac
m
i
s
p
o
n
a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
u
s
va
r
.
am
e
r
i
c
a
n
u
s
[
L
o
t
u
s
p
u
r
s
h
i
a
n
u
s
va
r
.
p
.
]
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
l
o
t
u
s
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Bo
r
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
Am
s
i
n
c
k
i
a
sp
.
fi
d
d
l
e
n
e
c
k
N
L
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Er
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
Ar
b
u
t
u
s
u
n
e
d
o
st
r
a
b
e
r
r
y
t
r
e
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
t
r
e
e
Ap
o
c
y
n
a
c
e
a
e
[A
s
c
l
e
p
i
a
d
a
c
e
a
e
]
As
c
l
e
p
i
a
s
f
a
s
c
i
c
u
l
a
r
i
s
Me
x
i
c
a
n
m
i
l
k
w
e
e
d
F
A
C
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Av
e
n
a
b
a
r
b
a
t
a
sl
e
n
d
e
r
o
a
t
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ba
c
c
h
a
r
i
s
p
i
l
u
l
a
r
i
s
ss
p
.
c
o
n
s
a
n
g
u
i
n
e
a
co
y
o
t
e
b
r
u
s
h
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
s
h
r
u
b
Br
a
s
s
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
Br
a
s
s
i
c
a
n
i
g
r
a
bl
a
c
k
m
u
s
t
a
r
d
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Br
o
m
u
s
d
i
a
n
d
r
u
s
ri
p
g
u
t
b
r
o
m
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Br
o
m
u
s
h
o
r
d
e
a
c
e
u
s
so
f
t
c
h
e
s
s
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ca
r
d
u
u
s
p
y
c
n
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
u
s
It
a
l
i
a
n
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ce
n
t
a
u
r
e
a
s
o
l
s
t
i
t
i
a
l
i
s
ye
l
l
o
w
s
t
a
r
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ce
n
t
r
o
m
a
d
i
a
p
a
r
r
y
i
ss
p
.
co
n
g
d
o
n
i
i
[He
m
i
z
o
n
i
a
p
.
ss
p
.
c
.
]
Co
n
g
d
o
n
'
s
t
a
r
p
l
a
n
t
F
A
C
R
a
n
k
1
B
.
2
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ci
r
s
i
u
m
v
u
l
g
a
r
e
bu
l
l
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Co
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e
Co
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
u
s
a
r
v
e
n
s
i
s
fi
e
l
d
b
i
n
d
w
e
e
d
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Co
r
t
a
d
e
r
i
a
sp
.
Pa
m
p
a
s
g
r
a
s
s
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Co
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e
[C
u
s
c
u
t
a
c
e
a
e
]
Cu
s
c
u
t
a
o
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
[
C
.
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
va
r
.
b
r
e
v
i
f
l
o
r
a
]
we
s
t
e
r
n
d
o
d
d
e
r
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
v
i
n
e
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Di
t
t
r
i
c
h
i
a
g
r
a
v
e
o
l
e
n
s
st
i
n
k
w
o
r
t
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
El
y
m
u
s
t
r
i
t
i
c
o
i
d
e
s
[
L
e
y
m
u
s
t
.
]
be
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
w
i
l
d
r
y
e
F
A
C
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
On
a
g
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ep
i
l
o
b
i
u
m
b
r
a
c
h
y
c
a
r
p
u
m
an
n
u
a
l
w
i
l
l
o
w
h
e
r
b
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
On
a
g
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ep
i
l
o
b
i
u
m
c
a
m
p
e
s
t
r
e
[
E
.
p
y
g
m
a
e
u
m
]
py
g
m
y
w
i
l
l
o
w
h
e
r
b
O
B
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ge
r
a
n
i
a
c
e
a
e
Er
o
d
i
u
m
c
i
c
u
t
a
r
i
u
m
re
d
s
t
e
m
s
t
o
r
k
'
s
b
i
l
l
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Pa
p
a
v
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Es
c
h
s
c
h
o
l
z
i
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
p
o
p
p
y
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Eu
p
h
o
r
b
i
a
c
e
a
e
Eu
p
h
o
r
b
i
a
s
e
r
p
e
n
s
[
C
h
a
m
a
e
s
y
c
e
s
.
]
ma
t
t
e
d
s
a
n
d
m
a
t
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 147
Fa
m
i
l
y
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
In
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
St
a
t
u
s
Ra
r
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Or
i
g
i
n
Form
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Fe
s
t
u
c
a
m
y
u
r
o
s
[
V
u
l
p
i
a
m
.
v
a
r
.
m
.
]
ra
t
t
a
i
l
f
e
s
c
u
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Fe
s
t
u
c
a
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
s
[
L
o
l
iu
m
m
u
l
t
i
f
l
o
r
u
m
;
L.
p
e
r
e
n
n
e
]
It
a
l
i
a
n
r
y
e
g
r
a
s
s
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Ap
i
a
c
e
a
e
Fo
e
n
i
c
u
l
u
m
v
u
l
g
a
r
e
fe
n
n
e
l
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Rh
a
m
n
a
c
e
a
e
Fr
a
n
g
u
l
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
[
R
h
a
m
n
u
s
c
.
]
co
f
f
e
e
b
e
r
r
y
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
s
h
r
u
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
He
l
m
i
n
t
h
o
t
h
e
c
a
e
c
h
i
o
i
d
e
s
[
P
i
c
r
i
s
e
.
]
br
i
s
t
l
y
o
x
-
t
o
n
g
u
e
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Ho
r
d
e
u
m
m
u
r
i
n
u
m
s
s
p
.
l
e
p
o
r
i
n
u
m
mo
u
s
e
b
a
r
l
e
y
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Co
r
t
a
d
e
r
i
a
s
p
.
Pa
m
p
a
s
g
r
a
s
s
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Me
l
i
l
o
t
u
s
s
p
.
sw
e
e
t
c
l
o
v
e
r
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
La
c
t
u
c
a
s
e
r
r
i
o
l
a
pr
i
c
k
l
y
l
e
t
t
u
c
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ly
t
h
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ly
t
h
r
u
m
h
y
s
s
o
p
i
f
o
l
i
a
hy
s
s
o
p
l
o
o
s
e
s
t
r
i
f
e
O
B
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ma
l
v
a
c
e
a
e
Ma
l
v
a
n
i
c
a
e
e
n
s
i
s
bu
l
l
m
a
l
l
o
w
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ma
l
v
a
c
e
a
e
Ma
l
v
e
l
l
a
l
e
p
r
o
s
a
al
k
a
l
i
m
a
l
l
o
w
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Me
d
i
c
a
g
o
p
o
l
y
m
o
r
p
h
a
bu
r
m
e
d
i
c
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Me
l
i
l
o
t
u
s
s
p
.
sw
e
e
t
c
l
o
v
e
r
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Ph
a
l
a
r
i
s
m
i
n
o
r
li
t
t
l
e
s
e
e
d
c
a
n
a
r
y
g
r
a
s
s
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Bo
r
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
Pl
a
g
i
o
b
o
t
h
r
y
s
s
p
.
po
p
c
o
r
n
f
l
o
w
e
r
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
l
y
g
o
n
a
c
e
a
e
Po
l
y
g
o
n
u
m
a
v
i
c
u
l
a
r
e
[
P
.
a
r
e
n
a
s
t
r
u
m
]
do
o
r
y
a
r
d
k
n
o
t
w
e
e
d
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
na
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Po
l
y
p
o
g
o
n
m
o
n
s
p
e
l
i
e
n
s
i
s
ra
b
b
i
t
'
s
-
f
o
o
t
g
r
a
s
s
F
A
C
W
--
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
l
y
g
o
n
a
c
e
a
e
Ru
m
e
x
c
r
i
s
p
u
s
cu
r
l
y
d
o
c
k
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ad
o
x
a
c
e
a
e
[C
a
p
r
i
f
o
l
i
a
c
e
a
e
]
Sa
m
b
u
c
u
s
n
i
g
r
a
s
s
p
.
c
a
e
r
u
l
e
a
[
S
.
me
x
i
c
a
n
a
]
bl
u
e
e
l
d
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
s
h
r
u
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Si
l
y
b
u
m
m
a
r
i
a
n
u
m
mi
l
k
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
So
n
c
h
u
s
a
s
p
e
r
s
s
p
.
a
s
p
e
r
pr
i
c
k
l
y
s
o
w
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Tr
i
f
o
l
i
u
m
h
i
r
t
u
m
ro
s
e
c
l
o
v
e
r
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Pl
a
n
t
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
[S
c
r
o
p
h
u
l
a
r
i
a
c
e
a
e
]
Ve
r
o
n
i
c
a
p
e
r
e
g
r
i
n
a
ss
p
.
x
a
l
a
p
e
n
s
i
s
ne
c
k
w
e
e
d
O
B
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.5-1
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
SOURCE: WRA Environmental Consultants, 8/19/2013.
Map Date: August 2013
Map By: Chris Zumwalt
Base Source: ESRI Streaming 5/12/10
"The Green" Mixed
Use Project
Alameda County,
California
.
0 130 26065
Feet
"The Green"
Biological Communities
8/19/13
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23055\gis\ArcMap\Figure Bio Communities.mxd
Legend
Study Area
Non-native annual grassland = 25.53 acres
Ruderal herbaceous stand = 2.26 acres
Potential seasonal wetland = 1.17 acres
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.5-2
CONGDON’S TARPLANT LOCATIONS
SOURCE: WRA Environmental Consultants, 8/19/2013.
Map Date: August 2013
Map By: Chris Zumwalt
Base Source: ESRI Streaming 5/12/10
"The Green" Mixed
Use Project
Alameda County,
California
.
0 120 24060
Feet
"The Green" Rare
Plant Map
8/19/13
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23055\gis\ArcMap\Figure Congdons Tarplant.mxd
Legend
Study Area
Congdon's tarplant population = 6.81 acres
!(Congdon's tarplant individuals
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 150
4.6 NOISE
INTRODUCTION
Noise impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement
examines whether any changes in the proposed project would result in new or substantially more
significant impacts that were not identified in the previous EIRs.
This DSEIR section is based on a project specific noise study prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin
dated April 15, 2014 and the full text is included in Appendix 8.8 of the DSEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental noise fundamentals. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a
rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually
measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of
hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 4.6-1.
Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but
rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities
of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify
environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with
a weighting that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and
extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the
decibel level so measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a
sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter
corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Typical A-weighted levels measured in the environment
and in industry are shown in Table 4.6-2 for different types of noise.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at
any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise
includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady
background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying
character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, L10, L50, and L90, are
commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1%, 10%,
50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely
used. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time.
In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference
in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior
background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise
also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at
night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime
noise levels, a descriptor, DNL (day/night average sound level), was developed. The DNL
divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM
to 7:00 AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 151
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes
both an evening and nighttime weighting.
Table 1 contained in Appendix 8.8 contains definitions of terminology used in this SEIR.
Updated noise environment. The project site is located north of Interstate 580 (I-580) in
Dublin, California. The project site is bounded by Martinelli Way to the north, Hacienda Drive to
the east, Interstate 580 to the south, and Arnold Road to the west. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
completed a series of noise measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise
monitoring survey consisted of two long-term noise measurements; LT-1 was made from
Wednesday, May 8th to Friday, May 10th, 2013 and LT-2 was made from Thursday, May 16th
to Tuesday, May 21st, 2013. Two short-term (10-minute) noise measurements were also made to
complete the survey. Noise monitoring locations are shown on Exhibit 4.6-1 and long-term
measurement data are shown in Appendix A of the full noise analysis (see Appendix 8.8).
The proposed project location is currently an undeveloped, vacant property with one small
modular office building; currently a vacant, existing commercial building that would be
relocated with the development of the project. Noise-sensitive residential land uses are located
northeast of the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection, approximately 750 feet from
the site. Existing hotel (which is considered a sensitive noise receptor) and commercial land uses
are located east of Hacienda Drive. The noise environment in the site vicinity results primarily
from vehicle traffic along Interstate 580, and local traffic along Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard, and operations associated with the existing commercial land uses near the site.
Site LT-1 was located near the southwest corner of the project site, 230 feet from the center of I-
580. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels from traffic noise along
I-580. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 74 to 76 dBA Leq during the day,
dropping to a low of 66 dBA Leq at night. The 24-hour average Community Noise Equivelant
Level at this location was 79 dBA CNEL.
Site LT-2 was located near the northwest corner of the project site, near the intersection of
Arnold Road and Martinelli Way, 75 feet from the center line of Martinelli Way and 50 feet from
the center of Arnold Road. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels
near the northern portions of the project site. The primary noise source during the measurement
was traffic on Arnold Road and Martinelli way. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged
from 61 to 66 dBA Leq during the weekday daytime hours, dropping to a low of 55 dBA Leq at
night. The Community Noise Equivelant Level at this location ranged from 67 to 69 dBA CNEL
for the weekdays and was 65 dBA CNEL during the weekend.
Two short-term noise measurements were also made in order to quantify the variation in noise
levels at receptors near the project site. Site ST-1 was located 100 feet west of the center of
Arnold Road, and 140 feet south of Dublin Boulevard. The 10-minute average noise level
measured between 12:10 p.m. and 12:20 p.m. was 65 dBA Leq.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 152
Site ST-2 was located approximately 60 feet from the center of Martinelli Way and 150 feet from
the center of Hacienda Boulevard. Noise levels were measured from 12:30 p.m. to 12:40 p.m.,
yielding an average noise level of 61 dBA Leq.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The State of California and the City of Dublin establish guidelines, plans, and policies designed
to limit noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses. The State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G
and the policies contained in the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan are used as
significance criteria in the impact assessment. Applicable criteria are as follows:
State CEQA Guidelines. The significance of environmental noise impacts resulting from a
proposed project are evaluated based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines. For purposes of this project, CEQA asks the following applicable questions. Would
the project result in:
1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
3. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Project-
generated noise level increases of 3 dBA CNEL or greater are considered significant where
exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard (60 dBA CNEL
for residential and hotel land uses). Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally
acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA CNEL or greater
are considered significant.
City of Dublin General Plan. Dublin’s Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility
standards for community noise environments. Table 4.6-1 shows that noise levels at retail and
commercial office land uses should normally not exceed the 70 dBA CNEL threshold, that motel
and hotel land uses should not normally exceed 60 dBA CNEL, and that residential land uses
should normally be less than 60 dBA CNEL.
Table 4.6-1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Motels, hotels 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80
Schools, churches,
nursing homes
60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
Neighborhood parks 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70
Offices: retail
commercial
70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9.1
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 153
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS CEQA DOCUMENTS
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant
impacts related to noise. These include:
IM 3.10/A (Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise) identified future vehicular
traffic associated with development proposed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as potentially
significant to future residents of Eastern Dublin. This impact would be mitigated to a level of
insignificance through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 that requires acoustic studies
for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area.
IM 3.10/B (Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise) would be a potentially
significant impact to residents in the Eastern Dublin area as development occurs in accord with
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced
through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/2.0, which required future development projects
to provide noise protection to existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts
to existing residents along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable.
IM 3.10/C (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise)
Was considered an insignificance impact and no mitigation was required.
IM 3.10/D (Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military
Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the County Jail) identified
potentially significant noise for future residents within 6000 feet of Parks RFTA. This impact
would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 that requires acoustic
studies for development near Parks RFTA for the Alameda County Government facility;
however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
IM 3.10/E (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise) would be a
potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction of the proposed
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan improvements, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and
utilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce construction noise
impacts to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise
Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards.
IM 3.10/F (Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan
Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development) would result from close proximity of different
land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.10/6.0
requires the preparation on noise management plans for all mixed-use developments within the
Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise generated by mixed-use development to a
level of insignificance.
IKEA SEIR. The topic of noise was not analyzed in this document.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 154
All of these impacts and mitigation measures would apply to the currently proposed project.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The project proposes to construct a mixed-use center on the site, which would include up to 400
residential units and up to 40,000 square feet of commercial space. The commercial space would
include up to 5,000 square feet of retail space and up to 35,000 square feet of restaurant space.
The retail space would typically be located on the ground floor, with multi-family residential
units above. The conceptual site plan shows residential uses in the eastern, western, and southern
portion of the site, with commercial uses in the center portion of the site. A trail is proposed
along the southern boundary of the site.
Based on the Initial Study, there is the potential for potentially significant impacts that could
expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of City standards due to vehicular traffic
and other noise sources such as truck unloading. These development level impacts are identified
below.
Significance criteria. The following standards of significance are used to assess potential
impacts related to noise:
Noise and Land Use Compatibility. A significant noise impact would occur if land use areas
proposed as part of the project would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the applicable noise
standards presented in the General Plan.
For retail and commercial land uses, exterior noise levels of 70 dBA CNEL or less are
considered normally acceptable, between 71 -75 dBA are considered conditionally
acceptable, between 76 – 80 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable and above 80 dBA
CNEL are clearly unacceptable.
For residential land uses, exterior noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL or less are considered
normally acceptable, between 61-70 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable,
between 71-75 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable, and above 75 dBA CNEL are
clearly unacceptable. The interior noise standard for residential dwellings shall be at or
below 45 dBA CNEL.
For neighborhood parks, exterior noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL or less are considered
normally acceptable, between 61-65 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable,
between 66-70 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable and above 70 dBA CNEL are
clearly unacceptable.
Substantial Permanent Noise Increases. The impact would be considered significant if traffic or
commercial noise sources generated by the project would:
cause the CNEL to increase by 5 dBA or more but remain below the normally
acceptable noise threshold (60 dBA CNEL for residential uses, 70 dBA CNEL for
commercial uses);
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 155
cause the CNEL to increase by 3 dBA or more and exceed normally acceptable noise
threshold.
Significant Supplemental Impacts. The proposed project would introduce new noise sensitive
uses into an area where noise levels are in excess of City standards. In addition, project
operations could generate noise levels that could exceed City standards at project residences.
Based on a comparison of existing and future traffic volumes from the project’s traffic study, a
noise increase of about 2 dB above existing levels is calculated to occur by 2030 assuming future
plus project traffic conditions, due primarily to cumulative traffic volume increases along I-580.
Existing + Project conditions would not measurably increase noise levels at the site above
Existing conditions, as project traffic would add only a very small volume percentage of vehicles
to existing traffic on the freeway. The project itself is expected to add 200 peak hour trips in
both the a.m. and p.m. hours, which would result in noise increase of less than 3 dB, which is the
threshold of significance. Preliminary Year 2030 traffic noise contours, which indicated the
‘worst case’ traffic noise scenario, were calculated using SoundPLAN 7.0, a three-dimensional
noise modeling software (shown in Exhibit 4.6-2).
Noise and Land Use Compatibility of Residential Exterior Use Areas. The results of the noise
modeling are shown in Exhibit 4.6-2. As indicated in this exhibit, exterior use areas located in
well-shielded portions of the site would achieve the 60 dBA CNEL standard for residential uses.
However, the proposed trail location would exceed the 60 dBA CNEL “normally acceptable”
standard for residential outdoor use areas and for neighborhood parks. Mitigation options are
limited for exterior land uses nearest I-580 because of the high noise levels generated by traffic.
Portions of the proposed trail, which is adjacent to I-580, noise levels would exceed 80 dBA
CNEL without mitigation. Although it is not desirable from an aesthetic point of view, a sizable
noise barrier (e.g. 14 feet or less in height), constructed on the project site, was examined and it
was concluded that it would not provide enough attenuation for exterior noise levels areas along
the proposed trail to achieve the 60 dBA CNEL standard.
A 14 foot high barrier, located along the site’s southern boundary, would reduce noise levels
along the proposed trail by only 8 to 10 dB, would reduce noise levels at ground level first row
southern facing residential facades by only 3 to 4 dB, and would reduce noise levels at upper
stories and in partially shielded or well shielded areas by 1 dB or less. Even with the
construction of a barrier, trail users would still be exposed to noise levels exceeding 70 dBA
CNEL, which would be considered “normally unacceptable” for residential outdoor use areas
and “clearly unacceptable” for neighborhood parks. However, the trail does not clearly fall into
either of these land use categories in that it is a secondary outdoor use and there are several other
areas on site that residents have access to for outdoor enjoyment that achieve the 60 dBA CNEL
“normally acceptable” standard for residential uses.
Noise and Land Use Compatibility of Project Residential Interiors. Interior noise levels within
new residential units are required to be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. Residential
buildings throughout much of the project site would be exposed to future exterior noise levels
greater than the normally acceptable exterior standard of 60 dBA CNEL, with some exterior
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 156
levels exceeding 80 dBA CNEL without mitigation. Exterior levels at residential facades would
exceed the normally acceptable residential criteria in much of the site and would fall into the
clearly unacceptable category in some areas. However, with use of site planning, architectural
layout (placing bedrooms away from I-580 for example), and construction modifications, interior
noise levels could be maintained below the 45 dBA CNEL interior threshold, as described below.
The highest future noise exposures would occur nearest Interstate 580. Upper level residences
would typically be exposed to noise levels that are about 1 dBA higher than ground level
residences (indicated in Exhibit 4.6-2) due to the lack of ground absorption between the traffic
noise source and the receptor location. Interior noise levels would vary depending on the final
design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and construction materials and
methods. Standard residential construction provides approximately 15 dBA of exterior to interior
noise reduction assuming the windows are partially open for ventilation. Standard construction
with the windows closed provides approximately 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior
spaces.
In exterior noise environments ranging from 60 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL, interior noise
levels can typically be maintained below City standards with the incorporation of an adequate
forced air mechanical ventilation system in each residential unit. Preliminary calculations
indicate that this measure would be applicable to the northern portion of the site, adjacent to
Martinelli Way, in the northeastern and northwestern portions of the site, adjacent to Hacienda
Drive and Arnold Road, but well shielded from I-580, and in well shielded areas in the southern
central portion of the site. It is assumed that standard thermal-pane residential windows/doors
with a minimum rating of STC 28 would be installed in these residences.
In exterior noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL or greater, a combination of forced-air
mechanical ventilation and sound-rated construction methods is often required to meet the
interior noise level limit. Attaining the necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces
is readily achievable in noise environments less than 75 dBA CNEL with proper wall
construction techniques, the selection of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of
forced-air mechanical ventilation systems. Preliminary calculations show that it is likely that
windows/doors with ratings of STC 30 to 40 would be required in noise environments of 75 dBA
CNEL or less. This measure would be applicable to partially shielded areas in the south central
portion of the site.
In exterior noise environments exceeding 75 dBA CNEL, the construction materials and
techniques necessary to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels become more expensive
and difficult to implement. Noise insulation features such as stucco-sided staggered-stud walls
and high STC-rated windows and doors (STC 36 to 42) would likely be required for first-row
receptors adjacent to I-580. First-row residences would also need to be equipped with a full
heating and air-conditioning system because it is unlikely residents would open their windows
for ventilation.
On-site commercial uses would be located in the north central portion of the site and would be
exposed to noise levels within the normally acceptable range (70 dBA CNEL or less).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 157
Project Residential Noise Compatibility with Proposed Retail and Restaurant Operational Noise.
The project would introduce new sources of noise into the existing noise environment. Typical
noise sources would include rooftop heating ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment
and truck deliveries to the site. Since the site is surrounded primarily by undeveloped land, these
operational noise sources would not impact existing noise sensitive uses in the project vicinity.
However, noise levels generated by commercial operations could generate noise levels in excess
of the Noise and Land Use Compatibility guidelines at project residences.
Noise impacts resulting from HVAC systems can vary considerably depending on the equipment
selected, the system design, and the location of the equipment relative to the noise sensitive use.
Noise levels from commercial HVAC systems are typically in the range of 60 to 70 dBA Leq at a
distance of 15 feet. Maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by delivery trucks are
generally in the range of 60 to 70 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. In the southernmost portion
of the site, adjacent to Interstate 580, HVAC and delivery truck noise would not generally be
distinguishable from traffic noise. However, depending on the time of day that deliveries occur,
noise generated by commercial delivery activities and HVAC systems could annoy residential
land uses that are located in well shielded areas in the northernmost portion of the site. In some
portions on the project site, residential uses and commercial uses are separated by 40 feet.
Supplemental Impact NOISE-1 (noise and land use compatibility). 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 (potentially significant supplemental
impact).
Mitigation options are limited for residential land uses nearest Interstate 580 because of the high
noise levels generated by traffic. With the current site plan, noise levels in centrally and northern
located outdoor common use areas are well shielded from I-580 and would achieve the 60 dBA
CNEL normally acceptable standard for residential uses. Reasonable height noise barriers,
constructed on the project site, would not provide enough attenuation for exterior noise levels
along the proposed trail to achieve the 60 dBA CNEL “normally acceptable” standard for
residential outdoor use areas and neighborhood parks. However, all residents would have access
to outdoor use areas in the central portion of the site which would achieve the 60 dBA CNEL
normally acceptable standard.
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measures will mitigate this impact to a less-
than-significant level by ensuring that the final design and location of project mechanical
equipment would not result in noise exposure exceeding City standards for noise sensitive uses.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 (noise and land use compatibility).
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).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 158
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 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.
Noise from increased vehicle project trips. The development of the project will cause an increase
in vehicular traffic on the street network. An increase is considered to be a significant impact if
project related traffic were to cause the CNEL to increase by 5 dBA or more but remain below
the normally acceptable noise threshold (60 dBA CNEL for residential uses, 70 dBA CNEL for
commercial uses), or cause the CNEL to increase by 3 dBA or more and exceed the normally
acceptable noise threshold. The noise exposure levels along roadways in the vicinity of the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 159
project were evaluated to determine whether or not the increased volumes of vehicular traffic
would cause a significant increase in the noise environment. Twenty five intersections were
analyzed. Traffic noise along a street is logarithmically proportional to the volume of traffic.
Traffic data was reviewed along roadways expected to be serving the project to calculate
potential traffic noise level increases attributable to the project. Based on the traffic volume data
developed for this study, traffic noise levels along most roadways in the project vicinity are
anticipated to increase by less than 1 dBA CNEL above existing conditions as a result of the
project (existing + project conditions). Noise levels from traffic increases are calculated to
increase by 3 to 4 dBA CNEL along Arnold Road, between Martinelli Way and Dublin
Boulevard, and on Martinelli Way, west of Hacienda Drive. Both of these roadway segments are
adjoined by undeveloped lands and there are no noise sensitive land uses along either roadway
segment. Under Future 2035 + Project conditions, traffic noise increases are calculated to be less
than 1 dB above Future 2035 conditions. The increase in noise levels would not exceed 3 dBA
CNEL at sensitive receivers adjacent to the project site and the impact is less-than-significant.
Cumulative Impacts. The project site is located in a primarily undeveloped area. Based on the
traffic volume data developed for this study, Year 2035 traffic noise levels along all of the
studied roadways in the project vicinity are anticipated to increase by less than 3 dBA CNEL as
a result of the project. As a result, the impact would be considered less-than-significant.
Construction noise impacts or operational noise impacts resulting from the project would not
combine with noise from other projects in the vicinity, or increased noise levels resulting from
the general growth of the area, to increase the severity of project noise impacts as discussed
above. Based on the findings of the site-specific acoustic analysis, no supplemental noise
impacts are anticipated.
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.6-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Exhibit 4.6-1. Noise Measurement Locations
LT-2
LT-1
ST-2
ST-1
Project Site
SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2014.
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.6-2
2030 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
FOR GROUND LEVEL RECEPTORS
Exhibit 4.6-2. 2030 Traffic Noise Contours for Ground Level Receptors
SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2014.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 162
4.7 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION
Air quality impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Since the project
requires an amendment to the City General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to allow new
land uses, this supplement to the EIR examines the potential air quality impacts of these new
land uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background. The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air
quality standards have been established at both the State and Federal level. The Bay Area meets
all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate
matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions
to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of
the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. Highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in
the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone
levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase
coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is
assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter
of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both
region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels
aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g.,
lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.
The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted within the
area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and regional meteorological
conditions, as well as the surrounding topography of the air basin. Air quality is described by the
concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally
expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Dublin is located in
the San Ramon Valley, where wind speeds rank as some of the lowest in the Bay Area. Air
temperatures are cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer because these valleys are further
from the moderating effect of large water bodies, and because the Coast Range blocks marine air
flow. During the summer, average daily maximum temperatures in the San Ramon/Tri-Valley
region are in the high 80's to 90 degrees. Average minimum temperatures in winter are in the low
to mid 40's. Shielded by the Coast Range to the west, rainfall amounts in the San Ramon/Tri-
Valley region are relatively low.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 163
Pollution potential is significant in these valleys. In the winter, light winds at night, coupled with
a surface-based inversion and terrain blocking to the east and west does not allow much
dispersion of pollutants. San Ramon Valley with its very narrow width could easily have
pollution buildups from emissions contributed by the major freeway in its center, and by
emissions from fireplaces and wood stoves. In the summer months, ozone can be transported into
the valleys from both the Central Valley and the central Bay Area.
National and state ambient air quality standards. As required by the Federal Clean Air Act,
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air
pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter,
including respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides,
and lead. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of California has established the
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Relevant Current State and Federal
standards are summarized in Table 4.7-1. CAAQS are generally the same or more stringent than
NAAQS.
Air Quality Monitoring Data. The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by
comparing the concentration to an appropriate ambient air quality standard. The standards
represent the allowable pollutant concentrations designed to ensure that the public health and
welfare are protected, while including a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive
individuals in the population. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the cleanest
metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality conditions at more than 20 locations
throughout the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Livermore at the
793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station. Summarized air pollutant data for this station is provided
in Table 4.7-2. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations measured at the station
over the five-year period from 2008 through 2012. Note that BAAQMD discontinued monitoring
of carbon monoxide in 2009. These data show that ozone levels exceeded State or Federal
standards each year over the past five years. The PM2.5 24-hour standard was exceeded in 2008
and 2009.
Ambient Air Quality Status. Areas with air pollutant levels that exceed adopted air quality
standards are designated as “nonattainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. Nonattainment
areas are sometimes further classified by degree (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and
extreme for ozone, and moderate and serious for carbon monoxide and PM10) or status
(“nonattainment-transitional”). Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as
“attainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. “Unclassified” areas are those with insufficient
air quality monitoring data to support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, but are
generally presumed to meet the ambient air quality standard. State Implementation Plans must be
prepared by states for areas designated as federal nonattainment areas to demonstrate how the
area will come into attainment of the exceeded federal ambient air quality standard. The Bay
Area is considered a marginal nonattainment area for ozone under the NAAQS and
nonattainment for ozone under the CAAQS (both 1- and 8-hour standards). The Bay Area is also
designated as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Bay Area is also considered
nonattainment for the State annual PM2.5 standard and the 24-hour PM10 standard. The region is
designated attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 164
Table 4.7-1. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards
Ozone
8-hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(147µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3)
—
Carbon
monoxide
1-hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen
dioxide
1-hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)
0.100 ppm
(188 µg/m3)
Annual 0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(196 µg/m3)
24-hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(365 µg/m3)
Annual —0.03 ppm
(56 µg/m3)
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Annual 20 µg/m3 —
24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-hour —35 µg/m3
Source: BAAQMD and EPA, 2013.
Notes: ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Table. 4.7-2. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station
Pollutant
Average
Time
Measured Air Pollutant Levels
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.141 ppm 0.113 ppm 0.150 ppm 0.115 ppm 0.102 ppm
8-Hour 0.111 ppm 0.086 ppm 0.098 ppm 0.085 ppm 0.090 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 1.4 ppm 1.3 ppm ND ND ND
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour 0.058 ppm 0.052 ppm 0.058 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.057 ppm
Annual 0.013 ppm 0.012 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.011 ppm
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24-Hour 46.8 ug/m3 ND ND ND ND
Annual ND ND ND ND ND
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour 52.7 ug/m3 45.7 ug/m3 34.7 ug/m3 23.6 ug/m3 31.1 ug/m3
Annual 10.1 ug/m3 9.2 ug/m3 7.6 ug/m3 7.8 ug/m3 6.5 ug/m3
Source: CARB, 2012.
Notes: ppm = parts per million and ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard.
ND = No data.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 165
Sensitive Receptors. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following persons who are most
likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people
with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive
receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups
include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools,
and parks. The closest sensitive receptors are residences located to the north and south of the
project site over 1,000 feet away. La Petite Academy school is located approximately 1,400 feet
north of the project site.
Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known
to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer). TACs are found in ambient
air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and
commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even
near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can
result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and Federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-
quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the CARB,
diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes
the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the
chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified
as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or
under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources
to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Several of these regulatory programs
affect medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from
California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule,
in-use public and utility fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008,
CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing
on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles.12 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet
specific performance requirements between 2012 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles
required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased
in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle.
BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the
region. At the State level, CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency)
oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD
published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality
impacts of projects.13
Greenhouse Gases. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic-
12 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: July 31, 2012.
13 BAAQMD, 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 166
generated (generated by humankind) atmospheric gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases
(GHG). Solar radiation enters the earth's atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is
absorbed at the surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space as infrared radiation.
Greenhouse gases, which are mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, are effective in
absorbing infrared radiation and redirecting some of this back to the earth's surface. As a result,
this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a
warming of the atmosphere. This is known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect helps
maintain a habitable climate. Emissions of GHGs from human activities, such as electricity
production, motor vehicle use and agriculture, are elevating the concentration of GHGs in the
atmosphere, and are reported to have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's natural
climate, known as global warming or global climate change. The term "global climate change" is
often used interchangeably with the term "global warming," but "global climate change" is
preferred because it implies that there are other consequences to the global climate in addition to
rising temperatures. Other than water vapor, the primary GHGs contributing to global climate
change include the following gases:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily a byproduct of fuel combustion;
• Nitrous oxide (N2O), a byproduct of fuel combustion; also associated with agricultural
operations such as the fertilization of crops;
• Methane (CH4), commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g.
livestock), wastewater treatment and landfill operations;
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were used as refrigerants, propellants and cleaning solvents,
but their production has been mostly prohibited by international treaty;
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are now widely used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons
in refrigeration and cooling; and
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions are commonly created
by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a term developed
to compare the propensity of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another GHG.
GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared
radiation and the length of time of gas remains in the atmosphere. The GWP of each GHG is
measured relative to CO2. Accordingly, GHG emissions are typically measured and reported in
terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). For instance, SF6 is 22,800 times more intense in terms of
global climate change contribution than CO2.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 167
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to construction, mobile source and
stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures were adopted to
control construction dust and exhaust emissions, and to minimize mobile and stationary source
emissions through, among other things, cooperative transportation and air quality planning and
transportation demand management. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the
proposed Project. Even with mitigation, however, significant cumulative construction, mobile
source and stationary source impacts remained. (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these
significant unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.)
The topic of greenhouse gas emissions was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendment would change land uses and
development intensity from those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Potential supplemental
impacts of the proposed project are analyzed below in accordance with CEQA standards.
Significance criteria. The following standards have been used to assess potential impacts related
to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs.
This assessment is based on BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA thresholds. BAAQMD’s adoption of its
2010 thresholds have been challenged in the lawsuit of California Building Industry Association
v. BAAQMD which is pending before the California Supreme Court (Supreme Court Case No.
S213478). The Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether CEQA requires the
analysis of the impacts of the environment on the project. The Court of Appeal decision upheld
BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds. The issue pending before the Supreme Court is not
directly related to the scientific basis of BAAQMD’s analysis of what levels of pollutants should
be deemed significant. The scientific and evidentiary basis supporting the BAAQMD CEQA
Thresholds are set forth in the studies and documents in BAAQMD’s record for adoption of the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 168
thresholds, including, but not limited to, the Options and Justification Report (dated October
2009) prepared by BAAQMD. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of
Significance) the City exercise its own discretion to use the significance thresholds in the
BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA thresholds based on substantial evidence contained in BAAQMD’s
record for adoption of the thresholds (which is relied on and incorporated herein).14 Accordingly,
this assessment uses the 2010 thresholds and methodologies from BAAQMD’s May 2011 CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing
environment. The significance thresholds used in this analysis are based on BAAQMD
standards and are summarized in Table 4.7-3.
Table 4.7-3. Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 82 15
PM2.5 54 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour avg.) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour avg.)
Fugitive Dust Best Management
Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources and Receptors
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 10 per one million
Hazard Index 1.0 1.0
Incremental annual
average PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.3 µg/m3
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000 foot
zone of influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 100 per one million
Chronic Hazard Index 10.0
Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 µg/m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions
(Annual)
Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or
1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons per capita
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less; and GHG = Greenhouse gases.
Source: BAAQMD, 2010 and 2011.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following significant supplemental air quality impacts and mitigation measures are
identified in this DSEIR.
Contribution to cumulatively considerable air pollutants. The Bay Area is considered a non-
attainment area for ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under both the Federal
Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for
14 BAAQMD. 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update Proposed Thresholds of Significance. May.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 169
respirable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10)
under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal act. The area has attained both State and
Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to predict
emissions from construction and operation of the site assuming full build out of the project. The
project land use types and size, and trip generation rate were input to CalEEMod.
Construction period emissions. CalEEMod provided annual emissions for construction.
CalEEMod provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-
site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-site activity
includes worker and vendor traffic. As a balanced site, no substantial hauling of soils is expected.
A construction build-out scenario, including CalEEmod default equipment list and phasing
schedule for a project of this type and size was used. No cranes are expected for use and, since
temporary line power is expected to be available, no generators were modeled. Attachment 1 (see
Appendix 8.9) includes the CalEEMod output for construction emissions.
The proposed land uses were input into CalEEMod, 35,000 square feet (s.f.) “High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant),”5,000 s.f. “Strip Mall,” or other retail, and 400 dwelling units
“Condo/Townhouse.”
The modeling scenario assumes that the project would be built out over a period of
approximately 26 months beginning in Spring of 2014, or an estimated 575 construction
workdays. Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions
by the number of construction days. Table 4.7-4 shows average daily construction emissions of
ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in
Table 4.7-4, predicted project emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance
thresholds.
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading would temporarily
generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include
disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless
properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be
an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day
to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather
conditions. Fugitive dust emissions would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind
speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the source,
while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 170
Table 4.7-4. Construction Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2014 Construction emissions (tons)0.49 tons 4.00 tons 0.22 tons 0.20 tons
2015 Construction emissions (tons)0.55 tons 3.21 tons 0.20 tons 0.18 tons
2016 Construction emissions (tons)3.47 tons 1.10 tons 0.07 tons 0.06 tons
Average daily emissions (pounds)1 15.7 lbs.28.9 lbs.1.7 lbs.1.5 lbs.
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per
day)
54 lbs.54 lbs.82 lbs.54 lbs.
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Assumes 575 workdays.
Although EDSP EIR air quality Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 provides specific methods for
reduction of fugitive dust from construction sites, the BAAQMD has adopted updated measures
to further reduce construction level impacts. Therefore, the project applicant shall adhere to
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, which shall replace EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure
3.11/1.0.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 (construction period air emissions). The
project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control measures as recommended by
the BAAQMD, 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 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
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 171
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
With adherence to the above supplemental mitigation measure, construction period air quality
impacts will be less-than-significant.
Operational Period Emissions. Operational air emissions from the project would be generated
primarily from autos driven by future residents, customers, employees and delivery trucks.
Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products are other typical
emissions from commercial uses. CalEEMod was used to predict emissions from operation of the
site assuming full build out of the project. The project land use types and size, and trip
generation rate were input to CalEEMod. Adjustments to the model are described below. Model
output worksheets are included in Attachment 1(see Appendix 8.9).
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control
technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the
model, the higher the emission rates CalEEMod uses. The earliest full year the residential portion
of the project could possibly be constructed and be occupied would be 2017. Use of this date is
considered conservative, as emissions associated with build-out later than 2017 would be lower.
CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific trip generation rates. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.,
provided trip generation rates for the project by land use type, which were entered into the
model. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., also provided specific pass-by trip rates (5 percent for the
restaurants and 5 percent for the Other Retail) for the project, internal trip reduction, and a
walking trips to BART reduction (5 percent), which were input to the model.
The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used. This includes customer
trip length of 7.3 miles per one-way trip.
Table 4.7-5 reports the predicted average daily operational emissions and Table 4.7- 6 reports
annual emissions. As shown in Tables 4.7-5 and 4.7-6, average daily and annual emissions of
ROG, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions associated with operation would not exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds. However, NOX, emissions would exceed BAAQMD significance
thresholds, which would be a significant impact.
Table 4.7-5. Daily Air Pollutant Emissions
from Operation of the Project (pounds/day)
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2017 Project 36.0 68.2 30.0 8.88
Daily Emission Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 172
Table 4.7-6. Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from
Operation of the Project (tons/year)
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.30 0.04 0.02 0.02
Energy 0.09 0.80 0.06 0.06
Mobile 4.18 11.61 5.39 1.54
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2017 Project 6.6 12.5 5.5 1.6
Annual Emission Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-1 (emission of cumulative considerable air pollutants
during project operation). 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
(Significant and Unavoidable supplemental impact).
Site-specific land use features that could reduce vehicle emissions were also input to the model,
including the approximate number of intersections per square miles (influencing walkability) and
accessibility to nearby transit. Emissions reductions from these specific site features are included
in the mitigated emissions output, by the nature of the CalEEMod air model. Results of modeling
indicate that consideration of these site-specific features would reduce operational NOX
emissions to 11.4 tons annually, which would still be significant.
The following measure is recommended to partially reduce the above impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 (emission of cumulative considerable air
pollutants during project operation). 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.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 173
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 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.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 from the IKEA SEIR shall also be implemented.
Considering that 78 full-time employees are anticipated, this accounts for about 7 percent of
future expected service population of the project (future full-time employees plus residents –
1,080 residents are expected based on 2.7 persons per dwelling unit, as indicated by the project
applicant). However, even with the TDM program in place, it is not certain that annual NOX
emissions would be reduced below 10 tons per year because it is not possible at this time to
accurately quantify possible emissions reductions. Similarly, it is not possible to quantify
possible emissions reductions from residential uses. A TDM program has not yet been proposed
and would likely only affect a small amount of the overall project trips. Of the retail-related trips,
only a small percentage is from employee commute, which a TDM program would be most
effective in controlling. Therefore, even with the TDM program in place, operational NOX
emissions could still exceed the established significance thresholds. Because the vast majority of
NOX emissions will be from mobile sources, and it is not possible to quantify potential emissions
reductions from implementation of a TDM program at this time, this impact would remain
Significant and Unavoidable.
Violation of air quality standards. As discussed above, the project would have operational
NOX emissions that exceed the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD. Therefore, the
project would contribute substantially to existing or projected violations of those standards.
Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the pollutant of
greatest concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the
greatest potential to cause high-localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Air pollutant
monitoring data indicate that carbon monoxide levels have been below State and Federal
standards in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as
attainment for the standard. There is an ambient air quality monitoring station in Livermore that
measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The highest measured level over any 8-hour
averaging period during the last 5 years is less than 2.0 parts per million (ppm), compared to the
ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. BAAQMD screening guidance indicates that projects
would have a less than significant impact to carbon monoxide levels (including potential
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 174
localized hotspots) if project traffic projections indicate traffic levels would not increase at any
affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The intersections affected by the
proposed project would have much lower traffic volumes (less than 10,000 vehicles per hour
including the project, based on the project traffic analysis). Therefore, the change in traffic
caused by the proposed project would be minimal and the project would not cause or contribute
to a violation of an ambient air quality standard. However, because operation of the project
would exceed significance thresholds for NOX, as discussed above, the project would contribute
substantially to existing and future violations of ozone ambient air quality standards. This impact
is considered Significant and Unavoidable.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The project would
result in a violation of regional air quality standard and would contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation (Significant and Unavoidable supplemental
impact)
Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would partially, but not fully,
mitigate the above impact and Supplemental Impact AQ-2 will remain Significant and
Unavoidable.
Conflict with applicable air quality plan. The most recent clean air plan is the Bay Area 2010
Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan) that was adopted by BAAQMD in September 2010. This plan
addresses air quality impacts with respect to obtaining ambient air quality standards for non-
attainment pollutants (i.e., ozone and particulate matter or PM10 and PM2.5), reducing exposure
of sensitive receptors to TACs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions such that the region can
meet AB 32 goals of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Emissions of non-attainment
criteria air pollutants are addressed above.
The consistency of the proposed project with the Clean Air Plan is primarily a question of
whether or not a project would attain air quality standards (i.e., 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). The proposed project would not
substantially affect traffic forecasts adversely and, as discussed in the traffic chapter, projected
trips due to project implementation would be less than those approved for the current use per the
Year 2035 Dublin Model. However, as discussed above, implementation of 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;
therefore, the project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan because the project would not
support the Clean Air Plan’s goal of attaining air quality standards.
For informational purposes, project consistency with the Clean Air Plan control measures are
summarized below.
Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The CAP includes emissions control
measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or
indirectly. The control measures are divided in to five categories that include:
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 175
measures to reduce stationary and area sources;
mobile source measures;
transportation control measures;
land use and local impact measures; and
energy and climate measures
In developing the control measures, BAAQMD identified the full range of tools and resources
available, both regulatory and non-regulatory, to address emissions. Implementation of each
control measure will rely on some combination of the following:
Adoption and enforcement of rules to reduce emissions from stationary sources, area
sources, and indirect sources;
Revisions to BAAQMD’s permitting requirements for stationary sources;
Enforcement of CARB rules to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines;
Allocation of grants and other funding by the Air District and/or partner agencies;
Promotion of best policies and practices that can be implemented by local agencies
through guidance documents, model ordinances, etc.;
Partnerships with local governments, other public agencies, the business community,
non-profits, etc.;
Public outreach and education;
Enhanced air quality monitoring;
Development of land use guidance and CEQA guidelines, and Air District review and
comment on Bay Area projects pursuant to CEQA; and
Leadership and advocacy.
This approach relies upon lead agencies to assist in implementing some of the control measures.
A key tool for local agency implementation is the development of land use policies and
implementing measures that address new development or redevelopment in local communities.
The consistency of the proposed General Plan amendment is evaluated with respect to each set of
control measures.
Stationary and Area Source Control Measures. The CAP includes Stationary Source Control
measures that BAAQMD adopts as rules or regulations through their authority to control
emissions from stationary and area sources. The BAAQMD is the implementing agency, since
these control measures are applicable to sources of air pollution that must obtain District permits.
Any new stationary sources would be required to obtain proper permits through BAAQMD.
However, no new stationary sources are proposed as part of the project. In addition, the City uses
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to evaluate air pollutant emissions from new
sources.
Mobile Source Measures. The CAP includes Mobile Source Measures that would reduce
emissions by accelerating the replacement of older, dirtier vehicles and equipment through
programs such as the BAAQMD’s Vehicle Buy-Back and Smoking Vehicle Programs, and
promoting advanced technology vehicles that reduce emissions. The implementation of these
measures relies heavily upon incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and the
Transportation Fund for Clean Air, to achieve voluntary emission reductions in advance of, or in
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 176
addition to, CARB requirements. CARB has new regulations that require the replacement or
retrofit of on-road trucks, construction equipment and other specific equipment that is diesel
powered. However, these measures are not directly applicable to the proposed project.
Transportation Control Measures. The CAP includes transportation control measures (TCMs)
that are strategies meant to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle
idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions. While most of
the TCMs are implemented at the regional level (e.g., by MTC or Caltrans), there are measures
that the CAP relies upon local communities to assist with implementation. In addition, the CAP
includes land use measures and energy and climate measures where implementation is aided by
proper land use planning decisions. The City’s General Plan, along with the Climate Action
Plan,15 include measures to reduce vehicle travel that are generally consistent with the CAP
TCMs.
Land use and Local Impact Measures- TAC Exposure. The CAP includes measures to reduce
TAC exposure to sensitive receptors. The City, as Lead CEQA Agency, uses the BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Thresholds to identify significant risks and develop appropriate mitigation
measures.
Energy and Climate Measures. Supplemental Impact AQ-5 addresses energy and climate issues
with the proposed project. The City has adopted a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, or
Climate Action Plan, that addresses the Clean Air Plan’s control measures regarding energy and
climate.
Table 4.7-7 lists the relevant Clean Air Plan policies to the project indicates compliance or non-
compliance with the policies.
Table 4.7-7. Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency
Transportation Control Measures
TCM B-2: Improve Transit Efficiency and Use Partially consistent. The project’s proximity to the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and associated transit
facilities would result in increased transit use. However,
the project should implement a TDM program that
would include measures such as a BART subsidy
program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rates to all employees.
TCM C-1: Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip
Reduction Program
Inconsistent. The project should implement a TDM
program that would include measures such as a
commuter tax benefit program (e.g., WageWorks) or
equivalent on qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs
and a rideshare program, such as Ridematch, Guaranteed
Ride Home, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit,
and City CarShare, and provide preferential parking for
carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
TCM C-3: Promote Rideshare Services and Incentives
TCM D-1: Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Partially consistent. The project would provide bicycle
15 City of Dublin, 2013. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update. July.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 177
Control Measure Project Consistency
Transportation Control Measures
parking in accordance with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The project should implement a
TDM program that commits to providing a defined
number of bicycle parking facilities (i.e., 20% of the
number of car spaces or a number approved by the City)
and provide secured bicycle (lockers or cages) for
employees.
TCM D-2: Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities Consistent. The project proposes to develop a
pedestrian network that would connect to the Dublin-
Pleasanton BART station and Hacienda Drive. Pubic
sidewalks would be constructed along all adjacent public
street frontages.
TCM D-3: Support Local Land Use Strategies Consistent. The proposed project includes a variety of
mixed retail services that would serve future nearby land
uses, including project on-site residential.
TCM E-2: Parking Pricing and Management Strategies Inconsistent. The project should implement a TDM
program that would include measures such as
preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
Energy and Climate Control Measures
ECM-1: Energy Efficiency Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with City’s Green Building section of the Municipal
Code (Section 7.94), State energy efficiency standards,
and the CALGreen building code.
ECM-4: Tree-Planting Consistent. The project would plant trees adjacent to
Hacienda Drive, Martinelli Way, Arnold Drive, the I-
580 freeway frontage and throughout the project site.
Trees would also be planted within the parking lots,
adjacent to proposed buildings, and concentrated in the
commercial plaza and residential open space areas.
As shown in Table 4.7-7, the project would be inconsistent with several of the Clean Air Plan
control measures. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would reduce this impact.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-3 (conflict with applicable clean air plan). The project
would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan (Significant and Unavoidable supplemental
impact).
Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would require implementation of a
TDM program to reduce trips associated with the proposed project. However, even after
mitigation, the project could still 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. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with the Clean Air
Plan because the project would not support the Clean Air Plan’s goal of attaining air quality
standards. As a result, the project impact from the project would remain Significant and
Unavoidable.
Impacts to Sensitive Receptors. Project impacts related to increased health risk can occur either
by introducing a new sensitive receptor, such as a residential use, in proximity to an existing
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 178
source of TACs or by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect
existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The BAAQMD recommends using a 1,000-
foot screening radius around a project site for purposes of identifying community health risk
from siting a new sensitive receptor or a new source of TACs. The proposed project would
introduce new sensitive receptors (residences) to the project site.
Project Operation. Implementation of the project would locate new residences near Interstate
580 (I-580), local roadways, and one stationary source that emits TACs. The BAAQMD
Guidelines include thresholds to evaluate single source and cumulative source impacts of TACs
and PM2.5 on proposed sensitive receptors. At the direction of the City, the single source risk and
hazards significance thresholds were used to evaluate impacts from all nearby existing TAC
sources. Annual concentrations of DPM and total organic compounds were used to predict
cancer and non-cancer health risks, in accordance with BAAQMD recommended methodology.
Highway TAC Emissions. Traffic on high volume roadways is a source of TAC emissions that
may adversely affect sensitive receptors that reside in close proximity to these roads. For
roadways, BAAQMD has published screening tables and data to determine if roadways with
traffic volumes of over 10,000 vehicles per day may have a significant effect on a proposed
project. In the vicinity of the project area I-580 has 214,000 average daily trips (ADT), as
reported by Caltrans.16 Therefore, a refined analysis of the impacts of toxic air contaminant
(TAC) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is necessary to evaluate potential cancer risks and
PM2.5 concentrations from I-580. A review of the traffic information reported by Caltrans
indicates that I-580 traffic includes about 6.8 percent trucks, of which 5.1 percent are considered
heavy duty trucks and 1.7 percent are medium duty trucks.
Roadway Emissions Modeling. This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs,
and PM2.5 emissions for traffic on I-580 using the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
EMFAC2011 emission factor model and the traffic mix developed from Caltrans data.
EMFAC2011 is the most recent version of the CARB motor vehicle emission factor model.
DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the EMFAC2011
emissions data.
CARB regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls
or replaced to meet new 2010 engine standards that have require low DPM and PM2.5 emissions.
This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023, with the
greatest reductions occurring in 2013 through 2015. While new trucks and buses will meet strict
federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate at which the fleet either turns
over so there are more cleaner vehicles on the road, or retrofitted to meet similar standards. With
this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed from the roads much quicker.
CARB anticipates a 68 percent reduction in PM2.5 (including DPM) emission from trucks in
2014 with this regulation.
Emission factors were developed for the years 2017, 2020, and 2025 using the calculated mix of
cars and trucks on I-580. Default EMFAC2011 vehicle model fleet age distributions for Alameda
County were assumed. Average daily traffic volumes and truck percentages were based on
16 California Department of Transportation, 2013. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 179
Caltrans data for I-580.5,17 Traffic volumes were assumed to increase one percent per year.
Average hourly traffic distributions for Alameda County roadways were developed using the
EMFAC mode, which were then applied to the site-specific average daily traffic volumes to
obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for I-580.
For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average speed of 65
mph was assumed for all vehicles other than trucks which were assumed to travel at a speed of
60 mph. An average travel speed of 50 mph was used for westbound traffic during the 2-hour
peak a.m. period and a speed of 25 mph was used for eastbound traffic during the peak p.m.
period.18
In addition to evaluating health risks from DPM, the BAAQMD recommends evaluating health
effects from total organic gas (TOG) exhaust emissions from tailpipes and from evaporative
running losses from non-diesel vehicles.19 Emissions of TOG were calculated for 2017, 2020,
and 2025 using the EMFAC2011 model. These TOG emissions were then used in modeling
organic TACs. TOG emissions from both exhaust and running evaporative loses from gasoline
vehicles were calculated using EMFAC2011 default model values for Alameda County along
with the traffic volumes and vehicle mixes for I-580. The hourly traffic distributions and DPM
and TOG emission rates used in the analysis are shown in Attachment 1 (see Appendix 8.9).
Roadway Dispersion Modeling. Dispersion modeling of TAC emissions was conducted using the
CAL3QHCR model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of roadway analysis.
A 5-year set of hourly meteorological data (2001 – 2005) for Pleasanton obtained from
BAAQMD was used in the modeling. This monitoring station is about 1.25 miles southwest of
the project site. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic volumes, and
emission factors. East and west bound traffic on I-580 within about 1,000 feet of the project site
were evaluated with the model. The modeling used a grid of receptors with receptors spaced
every 15 meters (about 49 feet) within the proposed residential area for the project. Receptor
heights of 1.5 meters were used for all receptors. Exhibit 4.7-1 shows the roadway links and
residential receptor locations used in the modeling.
Computed Cancer Risk. Using the modeled long-term average DPM and TOG concentrations,
the individual cancer risks were computed using the most recent methods recommended by
BAAQMD.20 The factors used to compute cancer risk are highly dependent on modeled
concentrations, exposure period or duration, and the type of receptor. The exposure level is
determined by the modeled concentration; however, it has to be averaged over a representative
exposure period. The averaging period is dependent on many factors, but mostly the type of
sensitive receptor that would reside at a site. This assessment conservatively assumed long-term
residential exposures. BAAQMD has developed exposure assumptions for typical types of
sensitive receptors. These include nearly continuous exposures of 70 years for residences. It
should be noted that the cancer risk calculations for 70-year residential exposures reflect use of
BAAQMD’s most recent cancer risk calculation method, adopted in 2010. The cancer risk
17 Caltrans, 2012. 2011 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highways. Available:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/
18 Alameda County Transportation Commission, 2011. 2011 Level of Service Monitoring Report. January 2013.
19 BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May.
20 BAAQMD, 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HSRA) Guidelines. January.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 180
calculations were based on applying age sensitivity weighting factors for each emissions period
modeled. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to
cancer causing TACs.
Cancer risks from I-580 traffic are greatest for the residential units closest to the highway, with
the maximum increased cancer risks occurring at receptors near the southeastern corner of the
project site closest to I-580. Cancer risks decrease with distance from the highway. The
maximum increased cancer risk for a ground level residential unit was computed as 60.7 in one
million. The location of maximum cancer risk is shown on Exhibit 4.7-1. Cancer risks for ground
level exposure throughout the site range from 15.4 in one million to 60.7 in one million. Exhibit
4.7-2 shows the computed cancer risk at each modeled ground level receptor location overlaid on
the conceptual site plan for the project. Cancer risks above 10 per million would be considered a
significant impact by the BAAQMD. Implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-
AQ-3 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated. The
chronic inhalation reference exposure level (REL) for DPM is 5 micrograms per cubic meter
(μg/m3). The maximum predicted annual DPM concentration is 0.134 μg/m3, which is much
lower than the REL. The Hazard Index (HI), which is the ratio of the annual DPM concentration
to the REL, is 0.03. This HI is much lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a HI
greater than 1.0. The modeling results and health risk calculations from I-580 traffic are provided
in Attachment 1 (see Appendix 8.9).
PM2.5 Concentrations from Roadway Traffic. In addition to evaluating the health risks from
TACs, potential impacts from PM2.5 emissions from vehicles traveling on I-580 were evaluated.
PM2.5 concentrations were modeled to evaluate the potential impact of exposure to PM2.5. To
evaluate potential non-cancer health effects due to PM2.5, the BAAQMD adopted a significance
threshold of an annual average PM2.5 concentration greater than 0.3 µg/m3.
The same basic modeling approach that was used for assessing TAC impacts was used in the
modeling of PM2.5 concentrations. PM2.5 emissions from all vehicles were used, rather than just
the diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle types (i.e., gasoline and diesel powered) produce
PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear were included in these
emissions. The assessment involved, first, calculating PM2.5 emission rates from traffic traveling
on I-580. Then, dispersion modeling using emission factors and traffic volumes was conducted.
The dispersion model provides estimated annual PM2.5 concentrations. PM2.5 emissions were
calculated using the EMFAC2011 model for the years 2017, 2020, and 2025. Average hourly
traffic volumes were calculated in the same manner as discussed earlier for the TAC modeling.
The emission rate calculations and traffic volumes are shown in Attachment 1 (see Appendix
8.9).
Annual average PM2.5 concentrations from I-580 traffic are greatest for the residential units
closest to the highway, with the maximum increased concentrations occurring at receptors near
the southeastern corner of the project site closest to I-580. PM2.5 concentrations decrease with
distance from the highway. The maximum increased annual PM2.5 concentration for a ground
level residential unit was 0.67 μg/m3. The location of maximum PM2.5 concentration is the same
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 181
as shown for cancer risk on Exhibit 4.7-1. Annual PM2.5 concentrations for ground level
exposure throughout the site range from 0.16 μg/m3 to 0.67 μg/m3. Exhibit 4.7-3 shows the
maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations at each modeled ground level receptor location overlaid
on the conceptual site plan for the project. PM2.5 concentrations greater than 0.3 µg/m3 are
considered significant.
Implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3 would reduce this impact to a
level of less than significant.
Local Roadway TAC Emissions. BAAQMD provides Roadway Screening Analysis Tables that
can be used to assess potential excess cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from surface
streets for each Bay Area county. There are two roadways in the project area that could affect the
project site (i.e. average daily traffic or ADT volumes at or above 10,000 trips).
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way are adjacent to the eastern and northern parts of the project
site, respectively. The traffic study provides peak a.m. and p.m. hourly traffic volumes. The ADT
for these roadways were computed by assuming that the p.m. peak hour is 10 percent of the
average daily traffic volume, and then taking the average of Existing Plus Project and 2035 Plus
Project conditions to estimate volumes at project operational year. Hacienda Drive would have
an ADT of 39,170 vehicles and Martinelli Way would have an ADT of 12,628 daily vehicles.
Modeling of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way to assess cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations
from vehicle traffic on these roadways was conducted in a similar manner as was done for I-580
impacts. The CAL3QHCR model was run using five years of hourly Pleasanton meteorological
data and roadway-specific geometry, hourly traffic volumes, and emission factors to calculate
DPM, PM2.5, and TOG TAC concentrations at residential receptor locations in the project height
of 1.5 meters
Emission factors for traffic on Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way were calculated using
CARB’s EMFAC2011 model assuming the default Santa Clara County traffic mix and a speed of
30 mph for Hacienda Drive and 35 mph for Martinelli Way. Emissions for 2020 were used for
the modeling and in developing estimates of increased cancer risks from these roads. Use of
2020 emissions provides a conservative estimate of roadway emissions for the 70-year period
evaluated for cancer risks. Traffic volumes for 2020 were based on the traffic study for the
project, as discussed above, and a BAAQMD recommended truck percentage of 4.09 percent for
Alameda County.21 Approximately 67 percent of the truck traffic was assumed to be medium-
duty trucks (i.e., delivery type trucks) and the remainder as being heavy duty trucks. Results of
local roadway risk modeling are shown in Table 4.7-8.
Stationary Source TAC Emissions. Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project
site were identified using the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis Tool.
This mapping tool uses Google Earth to identify the location of stationary sources and their
estimated risk and hazard impacts. At BAAQMD’s direction, risk and PM2.5 concentrations from
one diesel generator was adjusted for distance based on BAAQMD distance adjustment factors.
21 BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 182
A diesel back-up generator operated Oracle USA, Inc. (BAAQMD Plant No. 17753) at 5805
Owens Drive, is located approximately 500 feet southwest of the project site. Modeling of the
emergency back-up generator was conducted assess cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations at
residential receptor locations in the project height of 1.5 meters. The ISCST3 model was run
using five years of hourly Pleasanton meteorological data to calculate DPM and PM2.5
concentrations at project receptor locations. Based on the BAAQMD 2011 Toxic Inventory,
annual DPM emissions from this source are 1.77 pounds per year. Default BAAQMD stack
parameters for generator screening (6 feet high stack, 3 inch diameter, 50 meter/sec exit velocity,
and exit temperature of 656 degrees F) were used for the modeling. Increased cancer risks were
calculated based on the modeled concentrations and BAAQMD recommended methods. Details
of the in the analysis for the generator are shown in Attachment 1 (see Appendix 8.9). Results of
the emergency back-up generator modeling are shown in Table 4.7-8.
Cumulative Risks. Cumulative TAC impacts to proposed sensitive receptors were evaluated by
adding the cancer risk, Hazard Index and PM2.5 concentrations at the maximally exposed
individual (MEI) from each source. As discussed above, at the direction of the City, the single
source thresholds were used to evaluate impacts from all nearby existing TAC sources. Table
4.7-8 shows the community risk impacts from each source upon sensitive receptors. As shown in
Table 4.7-8, cumulative cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations would be above the significance
threshold. This would be a potentially significant impact. Hazard index would be below
BAAQMD thresholds. However, as shown in Table 4.7-8, with implementation of Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3, cumulative cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations would be
reduced to below the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 10 in one million cancer risk and 0.3
µg/m3 PM2.5 concentration, representing a less than significant impact with mitigation.
Table 4.7-8. Cumulative Risk at Proposed Site
Distance from
MEI (feet)
Source/
Plant No.
Facility
Name
Street
Address
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Hazard
Index
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
60 I-580a 60.70 0.03 0.67
250 Hacienda Drive a 1.01 <0.01 0.03
700 Martinelli Way a 0.13 <0.01 <0.01
675 17753 a Oracle
USA, Inc.
5805 Owens
Drive 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total 61.9 <0.06 <0.70
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 10 1.0 0.3
Significant? Yes No Yes
With Implementation of Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3
60 I-580a 9.60 <0.03 0.10
250 Hacienda Drive a 0.22 <0.01 <0.01
700 Martinelli Way a 0.03 <0.01 <0.01
675 17753 a Oracle
USA, Inc.
5805 Owens
Drive <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total <9.9 <0.06 <0.13
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 10 1.0 0.3
Significant? No No No
Notes: a Based on project-specific emissions and dispersion modeling
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 183
Mechanical Ventilation with Filtration. The U.S. EPA reports particle size removal efficiency for
filters rated MERV13 of 90 percent for particles in the size range of 1 to 3 µm and less than 75
percent for particles 0.3 to 1 µm.22 MERV16 filters are listed to have removal efficiency for
those particles (i.e., 0.3 to 3 µm) of 90 percent or greater. Recent studies by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District indicate that MERV13 filters could achieve reductions of about 60
percent for ultra-fine particles and about 35 percent for black carbon, while MERV16 filters
exceeded 85 percent.23
In 2012, CARB compiled a synthesis of the status of potential mitigation concepts to reduce
exposure to nearby traffic air pollution.24 Because mechanical ventilation has not been used in
residential buildings until recently, there has been limited assessment of its impact on entry of
particles and other pollutants into homes. CARB-reviewed studies of homes and schools have
shown that high-efficiency filtration in mechanical ventilation systems can be effective in
reducing levels of incoming outdoor particles. They noted that one study of residences in
Northern California found that the homes with active filtration in a mechanical system had a
notably lower portion of indoor particles from outdoors when the systems were on (filtration
active) than when they were turned off (no filtration). In another study reviewed by CARB that
included modeling study of Korean residential units with mechanical ventilation, filters rated
lower than MERV7 were insufficient for reducing contaminants that enter through the ventilation
filter; the study concluded that filters should exceed MERV11. The CARB review also notes that
in a school pilot study, a combination of MERV16 filters used as a replacement for the normal
panel filter in the ventilation system and in a separate filtration unit reduced indoor levels of
outdoor-generated black carbon, ultrafine particles and PM2.5 by 87 percent to 96 percent in three
Southern California schools.11 Use of the MERV16 panel filter alone in the HVAC system
achieved average particle reductions of nearly 90 percent. Another study reviewed by CARB
found indoor submicron particle counts in a Utah school were reduced to just one-eighth of the
outdoor levels in a building with a mechanical system using a MERV8 filter. Based on these
studies, it is assumed that MERV13 filtration could reduce particulate levels by 60 percent and
MERV16 filtration could achieve an 85 percent reduction.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-4 (exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations). The project would expose sensitive receptors to excess cancer risk and
PM2.5 concentrations that are above health-based thresholds (Less than Significant with
Mitigation)
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will ensure that the proposed
project reduces excess cancer risk and PM2.5 impacts caused by I-580 and local area traffic.
22 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2007, Method of Testing
General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-
2007.
23 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2009, Pilot Study of High Performance Air Filtration
for Classrooms Applications. Draft Report, October.
24 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2012, Status of Research on Potential Mitigation Concepts to Reduce
Exposure to Nearby Traffic Pollution, August.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 184
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3 (exposuree of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations). 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 predicted
cancer risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) 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
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 185
by an air quality 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.
Three air filtration cases were identified and modeled as mitigation scenarios. In order of
increased DPM removal effectiveness, these are: use of a filtration system using MERV13, use
of a filtration system using MERV16, and use of a filtration system using MERV16 with sealed,
inoperable windows and no balconies. The last case is referred to as “MERV16 Plus”. In all
cases the air intakes for the filtration systems would be located at roof top level and as far away
from I-580 as possible. Mitigated concentrations were modeled at the roof top level of the
residential buildings, where intakes for the air filtration systems would be located as required by
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3. Roof top concentrations were calculated at heights
of 40 and 50 feet, representative of three and four story buildings plus the approximate height of
the air filtration units.
Increased cancer risks for each of the three filtration cases were calculated assuming a
combination of outdoor and indoor exposure. For use of MERV13 and MERV16 filtration
systems, without the additional use of sealed, inoperable widows and no balconies, 3 hours of
outdoor exposure to ambient DPM concentrations and 21 hours of indoor exposure to filtered air
was assumed. In this case, the effective control efficiency using a MERV13 filtration system is
about 53 percent and for a MERV16 filtration system, the effective control efficiency is about 74
percent. For use of MERV16 air filtration systems with the additional requirements of sealed,
inoperable windows and no balconies (MERV16 Plus), 2 hours of outdoor exposure to ambient
DPM concentrations and 22 hours of indoor exposure to filtered air was assumed. The effective
control efficiency for the MERV16 Plus case is about 78 percent.
The projected cancer risks associated with use of these filtration systems would be reduced to
less than 10 in one million at all residences, or below the BAAQMD significance criterion and,
thus, to a level of less than significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 186
With use of project-specified air filtration systems, exposure to PM2.5 in the residential areas
throughout the project site would be reduced to below the BAAQMD significance criterion of
0.3 μg/m3 and, thus, to a level of less than significant.
Appendix 9 contains the modeling data and Exhibits 4.7-6 through 4.7-11, which graphically
illustrate the resulting cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure in the residential areas with the three levels
of air filtration in place.
Construction period impacts. Emissions from construction projects have the potential to
expose nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) to elevated levels of TACs. Construction
equipment and trucks fueled by diesel emit diesel particulate matter or DPM, which is a TAC.
However, as discussed above, the closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are
located over 1,000 feet from project construction activities. At this distance, construction of the
project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact with regards to construction
health risk. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Greenhouse gas emission impacts. The City of Dublin Climate Action Plan25 serves as a
Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy or a community-wide plan approved by
BAAQMD to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in accordance with AB 32 goals. A
Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State of
California’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business-as-usual emissions projected in 2020
back down to 1990 levels. Business-as-usual (BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020,
including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The
Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative
compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-
based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system.
According to the City Climate Action Plan, the Dublin community emitted approximately
357,211 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) in the year 2005. Of that, 51.4
percent came from state highways, 16.8 percent from commercial/industrial uses, 14.3 percent
from residential uses, 13.9 percent from local roads, and 3.5 percent from the waste sector.
The purpose of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy is to streamline the decision-
making process regarding a proposed project’s impact on GHG emissions within the City.
However, because the project would require a General Plan Amendment that changes the land
use from commercial to mixed use residential and commercial/retail, a quantified assessment of
the project’s GHG emissions has been conducted. In addition, the project’s consistency with the
relevant goals and reduction measures of the City Climate Action Plan is evaluated.
The following emissions reduction measures and policies are relevant to the proposed project:
A.1.3 Mixed-Use Development: The project would incorporate both residential housing
and at least one nonresidential use.
25 City of Dublin, 2013. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update. July.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 187
A.1.4 Bicycle Parking Requirements: Under the City’s Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more spaces in nonresidential zoning districts are
required to provide bicycle parking. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, one bicycle
parking space in a bicycle rack for each 40 vehicular parking spaces.
A.1.5 Streetscape Master Plan: The Zoning Ordinance has requirements for planting trees
in parking lots (minimum of one tree for every four parking spaces).
A.1.8 General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element: The Community
Design and Sustainability Element established design principles, policies, and
implementation measures to enhance the livability of Dublin and encourages a high level
of quality design that supports sustainability. The Community Design and Sustainability
Element applies to new development and redevelopment throughout the City.
A.1.9 Work with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to Improve Transit
(LAVTA): As part of the review process for proposed development projects, the City and
project proponents work with LAVTA on planning future bus stops locations and
extending service routes.
A.2.1 Green Building Ordinance: In 2009, the City passed a Green Building Ordinance
(DMC Chapter 7.94) requiring residential projects over 20 units to reach 50 points on the
GreenPoint Rated system. Alternatively, LEED for Homes is approved in the ordinance.
A.2.4 Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee: In 2006, the City of Dublin reduced the
building permit fee related to the installation of photovoltaic systems as an incentive for
property owners to install solar electricity generating capacity on their homes and
businesses. The City of Dublin recognizes the value of solar energy as a clean source of
electricity that does not produce GHG emissions.
A.2.5 LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects: The City has developed a LED
streetlight specification that requires all future development projects to install LED
streetlights.
A.3.1 Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance: Since 2005, the City has
implemented a Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, which requires that 100%
of asphalt and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50% of all other materials be
recycled.
A.3.4 Commercial Recycling Program: In 2005, the City began offering a free
commercial recycling program that also includes free indoor recycling containers for
businesses. Indoor recycling containers encourage employees to recycle by conveniently
locating recycling containers near their work areas.
A.3.5 Commercial Food Waste Collection Program: In 2005, the City began offering a
commercial food waste recycling program, which includes a subsidy to encourage greater
food waste recycling. Reducing the amount of food waste sent to the landfill also reduces
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 188
the CH4 emissions produced when organic waste decomposes in the absence of oxygen at
the landfill. CH4 is a powerful GHG, 21 times more potent than CO2.
A.3.6 Promote Commercial Recycling: In 2005, the City began promoting commercial
recycling in the City. The City has developed commercial recycling guides for businesses
and the City’s franchise waste hauler conducts two business audits per business day to
increase diversion efforts in the commercial sector. The 2010 CALGreen Code requires a
recycling area in new commercial buildings.
A.3.7 Promote Multi-Family Recycling: In 2005, the city began promoting multi-family
recycling. Increased recycling reduces the GHG emissions from extracting, processing,
and transporting virgin materials.
A.3.8 Curbside Residential Recycling Program: The City offers a convenient, free
recycling program that includes curbside pickup for residential neighborhoods to
encourage greater recycling efforts.
A.3.9 Curbside Organics Collection Program: The City offers a convenient organics
program that includes curbside pickup of food waste and yard waste for residential
neighborhoods.
While the project would comply with Climate Action Plan Policy A.1.3 (Mixed-Use
Development), compliance with the majority of policies has not yet been incorporated into the
project. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4 would ensure that all requirements of the
City Climate Action Plan are implemented.
GHG Emissions Quantification. The BAAQMD May 2011 CEQA Guidelines included GHG
emissions-based significance thresholds. These thresholds for land-use type projects include an
emissions level of 1,100 MT CO2e per year or a GHG efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per
year per service population (residents and employees). Projects with emissions above the
thresholds would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact on global climate
change.
The same CalEEMod model run that was used to predict criteria air pollutants was also used to
predict GHG emissions from operation of the site assuming full build-out of the project. The
same project land use types and size, trip generation rates and other project-specific information
were input to the model. CalEEMod output worksheets are included in Appendix 8.9.
The model uses mobile emission factors from the California Air Resources Board’s
EMFAC2011 model. This model is sensitive to the year selected, since vehicle emissions have
and continue to be reduced due to fuel efficiency standards and low carbon fuels. The Year 2017
was analyzed since it is the first full year that the project could conceivably be occupied.
Site-specific land use features that could reduce vehicle emissions were also input to the model,
including the approximate number of intersections per square miles (influencing walkability) and
accessibility to nearby transit. Emissions reductions from these specific site features are included
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 189
in the mitigated emissions output, by the nature of the CalEEMod air model.
Default rates for energy consumption were assumed in the model. Emissions rates associated
with electricity consumption were adjusted to account for Pacific Gas & Electric utility’s
(PG&E) projected 2017 CO2 intensity rate. This 2017 rate is based, in part, on the requirement of
a renewable energy portfolio standard of 33 percent by the year 2020. CalEEMod uses a default
rate of 641.35 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity produced. The derived 2017 rate for
PG&E was estimated at 348.86 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity delivered and is based
on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) GHG Calculator.26
The per capita rate for this project is the annual GHG emissions expressed in metric tons divided
by the estimated number of new residents and employees. The number of new residents is
anticipated to be 1,080 and the number of future employees is anticipated at 78, for a total
service population of 1,158, as indicated by the project applicant.
Default model assumptions for GHG emissions associated with area sources, solid waste
generation and water/wastewater use were applied to the project. No wood burning from
woodstoves or fireplaces was assumed in the modeling.
Construction Emissions. GHG emissions associated with construction were computed to be
1,334 MT CO2e, anticipated to occur over three separate calendar years. These are the emissions
from on-site operation of construction equipment, hauling truck trips, vendor truck trips, and
worker trips. The BAAQMD does not have an adopted Threshold of Significance for
construction-related GHG emissions. The District recommends quantifying emissions and
disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD also encourages the
incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where
feasible and applicable, including, but not limited to: using local building materials of at least 10
percent and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition
materials. The City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requires that 100 percent of
asphalt and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50 percent of all other materials be recycled.
Operational Emissions. As shown in Table 4.7-9, operation of the project would exceed the
threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr. The 2017 project per service population (employees)
emissions of 7.0 MT CO2e/year/service population would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6
MT CO2e/year. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and implementation of
Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4 would be required. Emissions with mitigation in place (see
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4) are projected to be 6.3 MT CO2e/year/service
population, which would still exceed the BAAQMD threshold. As shown in Table 4.7-10, a vast
majority of the emissions are from traffic.
It should be noted that, according to the project traffic report, projected trip generation due to
project implementation would be substantially less than those approved for the current use per
26 California Public Utilities Commissions GHG Calculator version 3c, October 7, 2010. Available on-line at:
http://ethree.com/public_projects/cpuc2.php. Accessed: April 11, 2013.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 190
the Year 2035 Dublin Model. Personal communication with BAAQMD staff27 indicated that due
this substantial reduction (1,856 net trips daily), and if the project were to comply with all
applicable climate action plan measures (through adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-AQ-4), this could provide evidence of a less than significant impact determination.
However, to be conservative, the lead agency has decided to measure the project’s impact on
global climate change against the quantified BAAQMD standards. Given that, there are no
additional feasible measures that the project could implement to reduce this impact to less than
significant. Therefore, this impact would be considered Significant and Unavoidable.
Table 4.7- 9. Annual Project GHG Emissions in Metric Tons
Source Category
2017 Project
Emissions
2017 Mitigated
Emissions
Area 25 25
Energy Consumption 1,385 1,259
Mobile 6.290 5,687
Solid Waste Generation 292 234
Water Usage 88 76
Total 8,080 7,281
Per Capita Emissions1 7.0 6.3
BAAQMD Thresholds 4.6 MT
CO2e/year/service
population
4.6 MT
CO2e/year/service
population
Notes: 1Based on service population of 1,158.
Supplemental Impact AQ-5 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions). The project
would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and indirectly, that would have a
significant impact on the environment or would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
(significant and unavoidable impact).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will ensure that the proposed
project would comply with the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan, but the project’s on-going
operations would exceed greenhouse gas emissions established by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure 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
27 Personal communication between Alison Kirk of BAAQMD and Joshua Carman of Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., April 10,
2014.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 191
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.
With the incorporation of Supplemental Mitigation measure SM-AQ-4, the project will be
consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. However, the Project GHG emissions would still
exceed the efficiency threshold of threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/year. Therefore, the impact of the
Project due to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative impacts. Cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are addressed in the
above section.
59
7
2
0
0
5
9
7
3
0
0
5
9
7
4
0
0
5
9
7
5
0
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
5
9
8
1
0
0
5
9
8
2
0
0
5
9
8
3
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
2
0
0
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
7
0
0
41
7
3
8
0
0
UTM - North (meters)
I-
5
8
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
56
.
1
56
.
4
56
.
6
56
.
8
57
.
2
57
.
5
57
.
9
58
.
2
58
.
4
58
.
6
58
.
8
59
.
1
59
.
3
59
.
5
59
.
7
59
.
8
60
.
0
60
.
2
60
.
3
60
.
4
60
.
5
60
.
6
60
.
7
46
.
7
46
.
9
47
.
1
47
.
4
47
.
7
48
.
0
48
.
3
48
.
6
48
.
8
49
.
0
49
.
2
49
.
4
49
.
6
49
.
8
49
.
9
50
.
1
50
.
2
50
.
4
50
.
5
50
.
6
50
.
6
50
.
7
50
.
8
50
.
9
51.051.0
39
.
8
40
.
1
40
.
3
40
.
5
40
.
8
41
.
0
41
.
3
41
.
6
41
.
8
42
.
0
42
.
2
42
.
4
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
8
43
.
0
43
.
1
43
.
2
43
.
3
43
.
4
43
.
5
43
.
5
43
.
6
43
.
7
43.743.8
34
.
7
34
.
9
35
.
1
35
.
3
35
.
6
35
.
8
36
.
0
36
.
3
36
.
5
36
.
7
36
.
9
37
.
0
37
.
2
37
.
3
37
.
5
37
.
6
37
.
7
37
.
8
37
.
9
37
.
9
38
.
0
38
.
0
38
.
1
38
.
2
38.238.238.2
30
.
6
30
.
9
31
.
1
31
.
3
31
.
5
31
.
7
31
.
9
32
.
1
32
.
3
32
.
5
32
.
7
32
.
8
33
.
0
33
.
1
33
.
2
33
.
3
33
.
4
33
.
5
33
.
6
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
7
33
.
8
33
.
9
33.933.933.9
27
.
4
27
.
6
27
.
8
28
.
0
28
.
2
28
.
4
28
.
6
28
.
8
29
.
0
29
.
1
29
.
3
29
.
4
29
.
6
29
.
7
29
.
8
29
.
9
30
.
0
30
.
0
30
.
1
30
.
2
30
.
2
30
.
3
30
.
3
30
.
4
30.430.430.4
24
.
8
25
.
0
25
.
1
25
.
3
25
.
5
25
.
7
25
.
9
26
.
0
26
.
2
26
.
4
26
.
5
26
.
6
26
.
7
26
.
9
27
.
0
27
.
0
27
.
1
27
.
2
27
.
2
27
.
3
27
.
3
27
.
4
27
.
4
27
.
5
27.527.527.5
22
.
6
22
.
7
22
.
9
23
.
1
23
.
2
23
.
4
23
.
6
23
.
7
23
.
9
24
.
0
24
.
1
24
.
3
24
.
4
24
.
5
24
.
6
24
.
7
24
.
7
24
.
8
24
.
8
24
.
9
24
.
9
24
.
9
25
.
0
25
.
0
25.025.025.0
20
.
7
20
.
9
21
.
0
21
.
2
21
.
3
21
.
5
21
.
6
21
.
8
21
.
9
22
.
0
22
.
1
22
.
2
22
.
3
22
.
4
22
.
5
22
.
6
22
.
7
22
.
7
22
.
7
22
.
8
22
.
8
22
.
9
22
.
9
22
.
9
22.922.922.9
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
4
19
.
5
19
.
7
19
.
8
19
.
9
20
.
1
20
.
2
20
.
3
20
.
4
20
.
5
20
.
6
20
.
7
20
.
8
20
.
8
20
.
9
20
.
9
21
.
0
21
.
0
21
.
0
21
.
1
21
.
1
21
.
1
21.121.121.0
17
.
7
17
.
8
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
2
18
.
4
18
.
5
18
.
6
18
.
7
18
.
8
18
.
9
19
.
0
19
.
1
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
3
19
.
3
19
.
4
19
.
4
19
.
4
19
.
5
19
.
5
19
.
5
19
.
5
19.519.519.4
16
.
5
16
.
6
16
.
7
16
.
9
17
.
0
17
.
1
17
.
2
17
.
3
17
.
4
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
7
17
.
7
17
.
8
17
.
9
17
.
9
18
.
0
18
.
0
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
1
18
.
1
18
.
1
18
.
1
18.118.118.0
15
.
4
15
.
5
15
.
6
15
.
8
15
.
9
16
.
0
16
.
1
16
.
2
16
.
3
16
.
3
16
.
4
16
.
5
16
.
5
16
.
6
16
.
7
16
.
7
16
.
8
16
.
8
16
.
8
16
.
8
16
.
9
16
.
9
16
.
9
16
.
9
16.816.816.8
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
0.
6
1
0.
6
1
0.
6
1
0.
6
2
0.
6
2
0.
6
3
0.
6
3
0.
6
3
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
7
0.
6
7
0.
5
0
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
2
0.
5
2
0.
5
2
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.560.56
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.480.48
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
2
0.420.420.42
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.370.370.37
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.330.330.33
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.300.300.30
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.270.270.27
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.250.250.25
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.230.230.23
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.210.210.21
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.190.190.19
0.
1
6
0.
1
6
0.
1
6
0.
1
6
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.180.180.18
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
56
.
4
56
.
7
56
.
9
57
.
1
57
.
5
57
.
8
58
.
2
58
.
6
58
.
8
59
.
1
59
.
3
59
.
6
59
.
9
60
.
1
60
.
3
60
.
5
60
.
7
60
.
9
61
.
1
61
.
3
61
.
5
61
.
7
61
.
9
47
.
0
47
.
2
47
.
4
47
.
7
48
.
0
48
.
3
48
.
7
49
.
0
49
.
2
49
.
5
49
.
7
49
.
9
50
.
2
50
.
4
50
.
6
50
.
7
50
.
9
51
.
1
51
.
3
51
.
4
51
.
6
51
.
8
52
.
0
52
.
3
52.653.0
40
.
1
40
.
4
40
.
6
40
.
9
41
.
1
41
.
4
41
.
7
42
.
0
42
.
2
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
9
43
.
1
43
.
3
43
.
5
43
.
6
43
.
8
44
.
0
44
.
1
44
.
3
44
.
4
44
.
6
44
.
8
45
.
1
45.445.7
35
.
0
35
.
2
35
.
4
35
.
7
35
.
9
36
.
2
36
.
5
36
.
7
37
.
0
37
.
2
37
.
4
37
.
6
37
.
8
37
.
9
38
.
1
38
.
3
38
.
4
38
.
5
38
.
7
38
.
8
39
.
0
39
.
2
39
.
4
39
.
6
39.940.340.8
31
.
0
31
.
2
31
.
4
31
.
6
31
.
9
32
.
1
32
.
3
32
.
6
32
.
8
33
.
0
33
.
2
33
.
4
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
9
34
.
0
34
.
2
34
.
3
34
.
4
34
.
6
34
.
7
34
.
9
35
.
1
35
.
3
35.636.036.5
27
.
8
28
.
0
28
.
2
28
.
4
28
.
6
28
.
8
29
.
0
29
.
3
29
.
5
29
.
6
29
.
8
30
.
0
30
.
2
30
.
3
30
.
5
30
.
6
30
.
7
30
.
8
31
.
0
31
.
1
31
.
2
31
.
4
31
.
6
31
.
8
32.132.533.1
25
.
1
25
.
3
25
.
5
25
.
7
25
.
9
26
.
1
26
.
3
26
.
5
26
.
7
26
.
9
27
.
0
27
.
2
27
.
4
27
.
5
27
.
6
27
.
8
27
.
9
28
.
0
28
.
1
28
.
3
28
.
4
28
.
6
28
.
8
29
.
0
29.329.630.2
23
.
0
23
.
1
23
.
3
23
.
5
23
.
7
23
.
9
24
.
0
24
.
2
24
.
4
24
.
6
24
.
7
24
.
9
25
.
0
25
.
1
25
.
3
25
.
4
25
.
5
25
.
6
25
.
7
25
.
9
26
.
0
26
.
2
26
.
3
26
.
6
26.827.227.8
21
.
1
21
.
3
21
.
5
21
.
6
21
.
8
22
.
0
22
.
1
22
.
3
22
.
5
22
.
6
22
.
8
22
.
9
23
.
0
23
.
1
23
.
3
23
.
4
23
.
5
23
.
6
23
.
7
23
.
8
24
.
0
24
.
1
24
.
3
24
.
5
24.825.225.8
19
.
5
19
.
7
19
.
9
20
.
0
20
.
2
20
.
3
20
.
5
20
.
6
20
.
8
20
.
9
21
.
1
21
.
2
21
.
3
21
.
4
21
.
5
21
.
6
21
.
7
21
.
8
21
.
9
22
.
1
22
.
2
22
.
3
22
.
5
22
.
7
23.023.424.0
18
.
2
18
.
3
18
.
5
18
.
6
18
.
8
18
.
9
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
3
19
.
5
19
.
6
19
.
7
19
.
8
19
.
9
20
.
0
20
.
1
20
.
2
20
.
3
20
.
4
20
.
5
20
.
7
20
.
8
21
.
0
21
.
2
21.521.822.5
17
.
0
17
.
2
17
.
3
17
.
4
17
.
6
17
.
7
17
.
8
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
2
18
.
3
18
.
4
18
.
5
18
.
6
18
.
7
18
.
8
18
.
9
19
.
0
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
4
19
.
5
19
.
7
19
.
9
20.120.521.1
16
.
0
16
.
2
16
.
3
16
.
4
16
.
5
16
.
7
16
.
8
16
.
9
17
.
0
17
.
1
17
.
2
17
.
3
17
.
4
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
7
17
.
8
17
.
9
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
2
18
.
3
18
.
5
18
.
7
19.019.320.0
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
0.
6
2
0.
6
2
0.
6
2
0.
6
3
0.
6
3
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
7
0.
6
7
0.
6
7
0.
6
8
0.
6
8
0.
6
8
0.
6
9
0.
6
9
0.
7
0
0.
7
0
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
2
0.
5
2
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.
5
7
0.
5
7
0.
5
7
0.
5
8
0.
5
8
0.
5
9
0.
5
9
0.
6
0
0.610.62
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.
4
9
0.
4
9
0.
4
9
0.
5
0
0.
5
0
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
2
0.530.54
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
2
0.
4
2
0.
4
2
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
6
0.470.480.49
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
1
0.420.430.45
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.380.390.41
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
4
0.350.360.38
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.320.340.35
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.300.310.33
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.280.300.31
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.270.280.30
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.250.270.29
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.240.260.28
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 197
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials issues on the project site were not analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. Subsequently, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for
hazardous materials have been completed on the site. This chapter examines the potential for
substantial soil or groundwater contamination on or adjacent to the site. The following analysis is
based on a Phase I ESA completed by the firm of ENGEO on the project site dated August 2,
2013. The ENGEO report is hereby incorporated by reference into this DSEIR and is available
for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project site conditions. The approximately 27.45-acre site is generally vacant with the
exception of a small building in the approximate center of the site. The project site was part of a
larger Camp Parks area transferred to Alameda County in 1969. While a part of Camp Parks, the
site number of former military buildings, paved roads, an athletic field and similar uses. All
structures and related military improvements were removed by the mid-1990’s.
Potential on-site contamination. The Phase I ESA found no evidence of Recognized
Environmental Conditions (RECs) on the site, although such conditions have been identified on
surrounding properties, specifically to the north, which is identified as Site 16A. A previous
Underground Storage Tank on the property was removed in 2008 and surrounding soil excavated
and removed. The Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) granted a
case closure on the project property on September 3, 2010 for commercial land uses only. In the
event residential land use is proposed on the property the closure letter stated that ACDEH is
required to be notified and will re-evaluate site conditions based on the submitted plans.
The applicant has also indicated that the small existing office building would be removed from
the site prior to commencement of construction activities. This building could contain lead based
paints or asbestos building materials.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Following is a partial listing of federal, state and local agencies that have regulatory authority
over the use, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes in the City of Dublin and Alameda
County.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA regulates chemical and hazardous
materials use, storage, treatment, handling, transport and disposal practices. This agency protects
workers and the community and integrates requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and
Clean Air Act into state legislation.
State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): The RWCQB, San
Francisco Bay Region, protected surface and groundwater resources from pollutants discharged
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 198
into waters of the state. This agency issues and enforces National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC): This state agency regulates
hazardous substances and wastes, oversees remedial investigations, protects drinking water from
contamination and warns the public of possible danger from listed carcinogens.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): The BAAQMD issues permits for
industrial air emissions, restaurant venting and similar operations. The District also establishes
regional air quality emissions standards.
Alameda County Health Department. The Alameda County Health Department operates the
Hazardous Materials/Waste Program for most cities in Alameda County, including Dublin and
unincorporated properties in the County. Specific programs include tracking leaking storage
tanks and similar activities.
City of Dublin. The Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Dublin General Plan contains
Guiding Policy A, that directs the City to maintain and enhance the ability to regulate uses,
transport and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take
appropriate action during emergencies. The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County
Fire Department to provide fire and emergency rescue service to City residences. The
Department provides emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in the community.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
The topic of hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
or the IKEA SEIR
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
As described in the Setting section, several recent hazardous materials studies have been
identified since the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR analyses. Supplemental impacts are
identified based on the recent Environmental Site Assessment for the project property.
Significance Criteria. Based on the findings of the Initial Study for the project, implementation
of the Project would be considered to have a significant impact with respect to hazardous
materials if it were to:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment.
Supplemental Impacts. . The proposed project would include grading of the entire site to allow
construction of proposed buildings parking areas and similar improvements as described in the
Project Description. Trenching of portions of the site would also occur for placement of
underground utilities. Installation of proposed landscaping would also require soil excavation for
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 199
installation of plant material and irrigation lines. Any of these activities could disturb previously
identified on-site contamination and release this into the environment. Residential uses are
included as part of the proposed project which were not part of the previously approved
commercial project. Under the Standards of Significance, this would be a significant impact.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-1 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment during construction). 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 (potentially significant impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level by requiring additional site testing and remediation, if required, before
grading for residential uses is allowed.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-1 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment during construction). 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, a Health and Safety Plan that
meets the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be
prepared and implemented if additional remediation is required.
Approval of the proposed project could result in a significant impact by causing a release of
hazardous materials into the environment if dewatering of the site is required by appropriate
regulatory agencies prior to commencement of construction.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment due to dewatering activities). If required, construction dewatering activities
could release identified accumulations of residual hydrocarbons, solvents, and other
contaminants into the environment, possibly exposing construction workers, and
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 200
surrounding residents and visitors during construction (potentially significant impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than
significant by requiring preparation and approval of necessary permits to safely dewater the site
and appropriate treatment of dewatered material to be reused. Permits and approvals may be
required from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alameda County Health Department, State Water
Resources Control Board discharge permits or potentially an air quality permit from the Bay
Area Air Quality Control Board if Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are found.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-2 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment due to dewatering activities). 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.
Demolition of the existing building on the site could result in a significant impact by causing a
release of lead based paint and asbestos containing material into the environment if these
materials are present in the building.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-3 (potential for release of lead based paint and asbestos
containing material). Demolition activities could release significant quantities of lead based
paint and asbestos containing material and other contaminants into the environment,
possibly exposing construction workers, and surrounding residents and visitors during
construction (potentially significant impact and mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less
than significant level by requiring the safe remediation of potentially hazardous material that
could be located in the existing building.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3 (potential for release of lead based paint and asbestos
containing material). 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 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.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 201
Supplemental Cumulative Impacts. On-site hazardous conditions would be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level with adherence to the above mitigation measures. No additional
supplemental impacts related to the potential for release of hazardous material have been
identified for adjacent properties in the Environmental Site Assessments prepared for this
project. Therefore, the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any
cumulative hazardous conditions.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 202
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative analysis of
feasible alternatives to the proposed project which have the potential of achieving most of the
project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project.
The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through comparison of
these alternatives to the proposed project, the advantages of each can be weighed and considered
by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a range of
alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and require the EIR to set forth a range of
alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment encompassing
approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Plan for 3,328 acres within the General Plan
Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (GPA/SP) proposed a variety
of types and densities of housing, as well as employment-generating commercial, campus office
and other land uses. Other portions of the planning area were designated schools, open space and
other community facilities. Protection for natural features of the planning area, including riparian
corridors and principal ridgelands, was provided through restrictive land use designations and
policies. The land use plan reflected the Eastern Dublin Project Objectives as set forth in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 2.5.
As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could eliminate
or reduce significant impacts of the Eastern Dublin Project. The four identified alternatives
included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No
Development. These are described below:
No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential development of the
GPA/SP area under the then-applicable Dublin General Plan for the unincorporated portion of
the planning area under the Alameda County General Plan.
Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative evaluated
development of the Specific Plan as proposed, but assumed development beyond the Specific
Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of this alternative was to
exclude Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon properties from the project.
Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative
evaluated potential development of the entire GPA/SP area, but reduced some higher traffic
generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential dwellings.
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development would occur in
the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar land uses then in place.
The Dublin City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under Resolution
No. 51-93. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 203
Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning
Area Alternative rather than the GPA/SP project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This
alternative was approved based on City Council findings that this alternative land use plan would
reduce land use impacts, would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce
growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic, infrastructure and noise
impacts of the originally proposed Eastern Dublin Project. Even under this alternative project,
however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the
GPA/SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No.
53-93).
5.2 Alternatives Identified in the IKEA SEIR
The following alternatives were analyzed in the IKEA Supplemental EIR.
No Project. This Alternative assumed development pursuant to the Dublin General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which, at that time, was Campus Office. Development intensity
between 0.25 and 0.75 was assumed, consistent with the EDSP. Less-than-significant impacts
after mitigation were identified with respect to air quality and biological resources. Traffic and
circulation impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed that the project site would remain
vacant and undeveloped. No impacts were identified under this Alternative.
Reduced Intensity. A Reduced Density Alternative was considered in the IKEA SEIR. The
development scenario analyzed development of 299,475 square feet of commercial uses on the
site. Air quality and biological resource impacts were found to be less-than-significant after
mitigation. Traffic and circulation impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Mixed Use. The final Alternative considered in the IKEA SEIR was a mixed-use development
that included 600,000 square feet of office space, 450 apartment dwellings and 21,000 square
feet of commercial land use. Similar to the No Project and Reduced Intensity Alternatives,
impacts to air quality and biological resources could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
while traffic and circulation impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
In certifying the IKEA SEIR by adopting Resolution No. 44-04 on March 16, 2004, the Dublin
City Council found all of the Alternatives identified in the SEIR to be infeasible. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of Resolution No. 44-04 for air quality and traffic
and circulation impacts that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
5.3 Alternatives Identified in this SEIR
Alternatives are described and evaluated below.
Alternative 1-No Project/No Development. CEQA requires an analysis of a "No Project"
alternative. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the site would remain vacant as it presently
exists and no development would occur. Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
land use designations would remain as they currently exist. This alternative would avoid the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 204
range of environmental impacts described in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the IKEA SEIR and this
DSEIR, including:
• Population and Housing: Land use within the project area would remain vacant and there
would be no impacts related increasing the local population on the project site.
• Transportation and Traffic: No new vehicle trips would be generated from the project
site that would be added to existing nearby roadways and freeways. No project traffic
would be added to existing left-turn lane queuing conditions. Similarly, there would be
no new pedestrian or bicycle traffic to and from the site nor any new users of public
transit systems from the proposed project. There would be no significant and unavoidable
impacts related to project contributions to congested Dublin arterial roadways or
freeways.
• Community Services and Facilities: No increases in the demand for public schools would
be created nor would there be an increased demand for local or regional park and
recreation facilities.
• Sewer and Water: There would be no demand for potable or recycled water or increased
wastewater from the site since no development would occur.
• Biological Resources: No special-status plant or wildlife species on the site would be
impacted since there would be no disturbance of the site. Similarly, there would be no
impacts to wetlands or other waters as would occur under the proposed project.
• Noise: No new noise sources would be generated on the site as a result of increased
traffic, noise from loading and unloading activities, use of trash compactors or
mechanical equipment since no development would occur.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: There would be no short-term construction
related air or greenhouse gas emissions or long-term operational air quality and
greenhouse emission impacts associated with the project since no construction would
occur and there would be no vehicle trips to and from the site. No sensitive receptors
would be located on the site and no impacts would occur with respect to exposure of
sensitive receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants. There would be no contribution to long-
term, cumulative air quality or greenhouse emissions since no vehicular traffic would be
attracted to the site or other activities occur that would cumulatively contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No notification to the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department of pending residential development on the site would
be required under the No Project Alternative. No disturbance of hazardous materials
located on the site would occur.
Overall, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in significantly less impacts
than the proposed project.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 205
Alternative 2-General Commercial Development. Alternative 2 would include development of
the site under the existing Planned Development zoning. The existing PD zoning would provide
for 270,000 square feet of retail space and 35,000 square feet of restaurant space on the project
site. The alternative would also include on-site parking, new driveways from adjoining roads,
landscaping and other improvements.
Implementation of this Alternative would not require amendments to the Dublin General Plan,
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or existing site zoning.
An analysis of the impacts of the Mixed-Use Alternative is as follows:
• Population and Housing: The project site would be developed with one or more retail and
restaurant space as currently envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. No housing would be located on the site, so there would be no impacts due
to housing and population which would be less than the proposed project.
• Transportation and Traffic: Under Alternative 2, A.M. peak hour trips would be less
than the proposed project, so impacts on roadways during the A.M. peak hour would be
less for this alternative as compared to the proposed project.
Table 5.1-1. Alternative 2 vs. Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Trips P.M. Peak Trips
Proposed Project1
560 405
Alternative 2 -Retail
Development2
351 842
Difference -209 +437
Notes:
1) Project trip rates contained in DSEIR Table 4.2-2
2) Alternative 2 trip rates provided by Kittelson & Associates, 2014
P.M. peak hour trips would be substantially greater, estimated to be 437, than the
proposed project. Therefore, traffic and transportation impacts on local roadways and
freeways would be expected to be greater than the proposed project. Significant and
unavoidable impacts would still occur at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
intersection and the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection. It is likely that
other significant and unavoidable impacts could also occur at other nearby intersections
during the P.M. peak hour due to the increased volume of traffic in this period.
Significant and unavoidable impacts in terms of queuing lengths at local intersections
would also occur, similar to the proposed project.
Impacts to traffic safety, pedestrian, bicycle and public transit systems as identified in the
Traffic and Transportation section of this DSEIR for the proposed project could also
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 206
occur with respect to Alternative 2, but these impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level as noted in the DSEIR.
• Community Services and Facilities: Development under Alternative 2 would likely result
in less-than-significant impacts to Dublin Unified School District facilities and local and
regional park facilities, since no residences would be built that would use community
services and facilities. Therefore, the impact of Alternative 2 would be less than the
proposed project.
• Sewer and Water: Potable water use for commercial development that could be built
under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project as shown in Table 4.4-1 of
this DSEIR. This is because proposed residential uses require more water use than
commercial and other non-residential uses. Similarly, commercial uses considered under
Alternative 2 would generate less wastewater since less water would be used. Therefore,
the impact of Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project.
• Biological Resources: Development under Alternative 2 would be approximately the
same as the proposed project, since the same amount of ground disturbance would occur
and the same impacts to special-status plant and wildlife resources would occur. The
same impacts to wetlands and other waters would also occur. Similar to the proposed
project, all biological resource impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
• Noise: New sources of noise would be introduced onto the project site in terms of vehicle
traffic, loading and unloading activities and mechanical noise. However, there would not
be a permanent residential population that would be affected by increased noise or be
subject to existing noise from the I-580 freeway south of the site. Overall, noise impacts
under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Development that could occur under
Alternative 2 would result in an estimated 11,814 daily trips (source: Kittelson
Associates, 4/9/14), which would be significantly greater than the estimated 6,219 trips
for the proposed project as documented in Table 4-2-4. This would result in emissions of
a significantly higher emission of air pollutants and greenhouses on a project and
cumulative basis than the proposed project.
However, there would not be a permanent on-site resident population that would be
impacted by Toxic Air Contaminants as would residents under the proposed project. It is
anticipated that impacts related to violation of air quality standards, conflicts with
applicable regional clean air plans, and greenhouse gas emissions would be significant
and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No notification to the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department of pending residential development on the site would
be required under Alternative 2 since no residential development would occur. However,
development of the site under Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to proposed
project due to exposure to and disposal of hazardous materials.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 207
Alternative 3- Campus Office Development. Under this alternative the site would be
developed consistent with the existing Campus Office 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 0.35, consistent with
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.
No amendments to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be required to
implement Alternative 3.
This alternative would generally result in the same type and intensity of impacts as analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, including:
• Population and Housing: The project site would be developed with multiple low-rise,
offices in a campus-like setting, as currently envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, similar to Alternative 2. No impacts would occur with
respect to inducing additional population growth or housing on this site.
• Transportation and Traffic: New peak hour vehicle trips would be added to the local and
regional roadways system. Based on Table 5.1-2, there would be slightly fewer peak hour
trips than the proposed project, but impacts to local and regional roads, key nearby
intersections and queuing conditions would occur on a project and cumulative basis. It is
likely the same significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as would occur for the
proposed project since approximately the same number of peak trips would occur.
Table 5.1-2. Alternative 3 vs. Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Trips P.M. Peak Trips
Proposed Project1
560 405
Alternative 3 –Office
Development2
402 344
Difference -158 -61
Notes:
1) Project trip rates contained in DSEIR Table 4.2-2
2) Alternative 2 trip rates provided by Kittelson & Associates, 2014
Impacts to traffic safety, pedestrian, bicycle and public transit systems as identified in the
Traffic and Transportation section of this DSEIR for the proposed project could also
occur with respect to Alternative 2, but these impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level as noted in the DSEIR.
• Community Services and Facilities: Similar to Alternative 2, development of the site
under Alternative 3 would result in less-than-significant impacts to Dublin Unified
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 208
School District facilities and local and regional park facilities, since no residences would
be built.
• Sewer and Water: Impacts to use of water and generation of wastewater would be less
than Alternative 2, since water demand for office use is considered approximately the
same as retail use by DSRSD staff (Source: S. Kolodzie, DSRSD, 3/3/14) and would
result in an estimated build-out water use of approximately 21,800 gallons per day based
on DSRSD water use rates shown in Table 4.2-1. Impacts to water and sewer would be
less under Alternative 3 than the proposed project.
• Biological Resources: Development under Alternative 3 would be approximately the
same as the proposed project and Alternative 2, since the same amount of ground
disturbance would occur and the same impacts to special-status plant and wildlife
resources would occur. The same impacts to wetlands and other waters would also occur.
Similar to the proposed project, all biological resource impacts could be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.
• Noise: New sources of noise would be introduced onto the project site in terms of vehicle
traffic and mechanical noise. However, similar to Alternative 2, there would not be a
permanent residential population on the site as would occur under the proposed project
that would be affected by increased on-site noise or be subject to existing noise from the
I-580 freeway south of the site. Overall, noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be
approximately the same as Alternative 2 and would be less than the proposed project.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse
gasses under Alternative 3 is estimated to be less than either the proposed project or
Alternative 2. This is due to fewer total daily trips that would be generated by
Alternative. The estimated total daily vehicle trips for Alternative 3 would be 2,547
(Kittleson & Associates, 4/9/14), which is fewer total daily trips than either Alternative 2
or the proposed project. Similar to Alternative 2, there would not be an on-site population
of sensitive receptors that would be impacts from TAC emissions from the adjacent I-580
freeway as would occur under the proposed project. It is likely that Alternative 3 would
result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to violation of air
quality standards, conflicts with applicable clean air plans and emission of greenhouse
gasses.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No notification to the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department of pending residential development on the site would
be required under Alternative 3 since no residential development would occur.
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 1, the No Project
alternative, would result in fewer and less intensive environmental impacts than the proposed
project and all other alternatives that propose development, since the project site would remain
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 209
vacant and no development impacts would occur. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be the
Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Between the remaining alternatives, Alternative 2 would then be the next most environmentally
superior alternative.
Alternative 2 (general commercial development) would result in significantly fewer total daily
trips than either the proposed project or Alternative 3 (campus office development), although
Alternative 2 would result in slightly higher p.m. peak hour trips than the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would result in less intense impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
than the proposed project since it would result in significantly fewer daily vehicle trips.
Alternative 2 would also result in less intense impacts to community services and facilities
(schools and parks), on-site noise impacts, water use and wastewater generation than the
proposed project, since there would not be an on-site population that would require these
services. Impacts to on-site biological resources would be approximately the same as the
proposed project since the same amount of ground surface would be disturbed for grading and
construction. Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be less under Alternative 2 than
the proposed project, since there would not be an on-site resident population that could be
affected by any residual contaminants. Similarly, impacts regarding Toxic Air Contaminants and
noise would be slightly less than the proposed project due to an absence of an on-site residential
population.
Alternative 3 (campus office development) is anticipated to have approximately the same
environmental impacts as the proposed project in terms of water use and wastewater generation,
hazards, and biological impacts as the proposed project. Impacts regarding traffic and
transportation, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be greater than the than the
proposed project and Alternative 2. Impacts regarding Toxic Air Contaminants and noise would
be similar to Alternative 2.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 210
6.0 REQUIRED CEQA DISCUSSION
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential cumulative impacts of implementing the
proposed Project, as required by CEQA.
6.1 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2) as those which taken
individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing
development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the
potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be
evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of the impacts
and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion of
cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as that provided for the Project
alone.
The analyses of cumulative impacts for the project are contained in each of the impact sections
addressed in this SEIR. The cumulative impacts analysis for impacts not addressed in this EIR
are contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR.
A number of cumulative impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
• Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands (Impact 3.1/F)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon
Road (Impact 3.3/A)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between I-680 freeway and
Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard Impact 3.3/C)
• Cumulative degradation of I-680 freeway operations north of I-580 (Impact 3.3/D)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 east of Airway Boulevard and between Dougherty Road
and Hacienda Boulevard (Impact 3.3/D)
• Cumulative degradation of Dublin Boulevard intersections with Hacienda Drive and
Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
• Cumulative degradation of Tassajara Road intersections with Gleason Road, Fallon Road
and Transit Spine (renamed to Central Boulevard) (Impact 3.3/N)
• Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste facilities (Impact 3.4 O and
P)
• Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/E)
• Increase in demand for water (Impact 3.5/Q)
• Direct habitat loss (Imapct3.7/A)
• Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3/7/C)
• Construction equipment/vehicle emissions (Impact 3.11/B)
• Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of nitrogen (Impact
3.11/C)
• Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11/E)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 211
IKEA SEIR. The following cumulative impacts were documented in the IKEA SEIR, as follows.
• Exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ozone precursors
(Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-3)
• Cumulative traffic and transportation impacts at study area intersections (Supplemental
Impact SM-TRA-2)
• Cumulative increase of project-related traffic on adjacent freeways (Supplemental Impact
SM-TRA-3)
This DSEIR identifies additional cumulative impacts:
• Supplemental Impact TR-2: Short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection during the PM peak period.
• Supplemental Impact TR-3: Short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Boulevard/Hacienda Drive intersection during the PM peak period.
• Supplemental Impact TR-4: Short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-5: Long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-6: Long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Boulevard/Arnold Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-7: Short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-8: Short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-9: Long-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Scarlett Drive/Dougherty Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-15: Short-term cumulative conditions roadway segment impact
along northbound Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway.
• Supplemental Impact TR-16: Roadway segment impact along westbound Dublin
Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks.
• Supplemental Impact AQ-2: Emission of cumulative considerable air pollutants during
project operation.
• Supplemental Impact AQ-4: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and
indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would conflict
with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed
Project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the Project. If the
benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse
environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 212
Project without significantly reducing or eliminating an adverse impact, the Lead Agency must
make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the information in the record.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.)
Any approval of the current project would likewise require adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable supplemental impacts identified in this
DSEIR, i.e., Supplemental Impacts TR-2 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection during the PM peak period), TR-3 (short-term cumulative
impacts at Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection), TR-10 (roadway segment impact along
Dublin Blvd. between Hacienda Dr. and Hibernia Dr.), TR-11 (roadway segment impact along
Hacienda Dr. between Dublin Blvd. and Central Pkwy.), TR-12 (roadway segment impact along
Dublin Blvd. between DeMarcus Blvd. and Iron Horse Pkwy.), TR-13 (roadway segment impact
along Dublin Blvd. between Scarlett Dr. and Dougherty Rd), TR-14 (short-term cumulative
impact under No Project conditions, roadway segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr.
between the I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing), TR-15 (short-term cumulative
impact, roadway segment impact along northbound Tassajara Rd. between Dublin Blvd. and
Central Pkwy.), TR-16 (long-term cumulative impact, roadway segment impact along westbound
Dublin Blvd. between Iron Horse Pkwy. and Camp Parks), TR-17 (long-term cumulative impact
under No Project conditions, roadway segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr. between
the I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing).
The following additional impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable as
well: Supplemental Impact AQ-1 (emission of cumulative considerable air pollutants during
project operation), Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards) and
Supplemental Impact AQ-3 (conflict with applicable clean air plan) and Supplemental Impact
AQ-5 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions).
Pursuant to the Citizens for a Better Environment case, the Statement of Overriding
Considerations would also be required to address the significant unavoidable impacts from the
Eastern Dublin EIR that are related to the project.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 213
7.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
7.1 Persons and Organizations
EIR Preparers
The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document.
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager)
Alice Chen P.E., Kittleson & Associates (traffic and transportation)
Debby Yueh, P.E., Kittleson & Associates (traffic and transportation)
Michael Thill, Illingworth & Rodkin (acoustics)
James Reyff, Illingworth & Rodkin (air quality/greenhouse gas emissions)
Joshua Carmen, Illingworth & Rodkin (air quality/greenhouse gas emissions)
Pat Lam, ENGEO (hazards)
Tom Fraser, WRA (biological resources)
Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics)
City of Dublin Staff
Luke Sims AICP, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Andy Russell, P.E. City Engineer
Obaid Khan P.E., Traffic Engineer
Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshall, Alameda County Fire Department
Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services
Applicant Consulting Team
Mike Parker and David Clock, Quattro Realty
Other Agencies and Organizations Contacted
Stan Kolozdie and Rhodora Biagtan, Dublin San Ramon Services District
Patricia Benavidez and Shirley Edward, Dublin Unified School District
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 214
7.2 References
The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in the
preparation of this DSEIR.
Annual Review of Sustainable Water Supply for Zone 7 Water Agency, Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, May 15, 2013
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, 2011
Climate Action Plan, City of Dublin, updated July 2013
Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, 2007
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR, RBF Consulting, June 2013
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 2/13
Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace
Roberts & Todd, 1994
Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Alameda County
ALUC, August 2012
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update
The Village at Dublin Supplemental EIR (Draft and Final), Jerry Haag, October 2013
Urban Water Master Plan 2010, Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2011
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 215
8.0 Appendices
All Appendices are under separate cover
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/