Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.1 - 1857 Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR PLPA- Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 6, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Zeiss Innovation Center: Planned Development Zoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA 2017-00025) Prepared by: Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements to be built in two phases. Requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for t he entire 11.36 acre site, a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1, which includes a 208,650 square foot research and development building, surface parking and related site improvements and adoption of a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and a take the following actions: a) Adopt the Resolution adopting a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Zeiss Innovation Center; b) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Deve lopment Plan for the Zeiss Innovation Center; and c) Adopt the Resolution Approving the Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center project. DESCRIPTION The project site is approximately 11.36 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road, as shown in the vicinity map below. The site, which is referred to as Site 15A, is currently owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and will be sold to the Applicant. The property has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Campus Office, which allows for the development of a “campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses.” Page 2 of 4 Typical uses include professional and administrative offices , research and development, business and commercial services, and limited light manufacturing. Figure 1: Project Vicinity Current Request The Applicant, Carl Zeiss Inc., plans to consolidate several of their northern California facilities in Dublin. To accommodate this, they are proposing a campus office development of up to 433,090 square feet on Site 15A. The project would include two contemporary office buildings, a parking structure and associated site, frontage and landscape improvements to be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center includes a 208,650 square foot, 3-story research and development building. This facility will contain research and development labs, offices, a demonstration center and show room, warehouse, loading area, shipping and receiving, an employee cafeteria. The site plan includes surface parking for 664 vehicles and associated site improvements including enhanced seasonal wetlands and walking trail, entry plaza and fountain, landscaping and frontage improvements. Phase 2 will be built in the future to include a second research and development building of up to 224,440 square feet and a parking structure to support both Phase 1 and 2. The majority of the surface parking will be eliminated with construction of the Phase 2 improvements. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 1) for a complete analysis of the project. The following is a brief overview of the requested entitlements. Boulevard Persimmon Place Formerly SAP Transit Center Ross Campus Microdental Hacienda Crossings Page 3 of 4 1. Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire site (Attachment 2). 2. Site Development Review Permit for the Phase 1 building and related site improvements (Attachment 3, 4 & 5). 3. Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 6). PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 13, 2018 to review the proposed project. Two members of the public spoke in opposition to the project and submitted comment letters (Attachment 7). The Planning Commission un animously recommended that the City Council approve the project (Attachment 8). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The development on the project site has been addressed in three CEQA documents, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin Specific Pl an, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Cisco project and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and was addressed in the General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR is a Programmatic EIR and evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin. In 2001, the City prepared and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Cisco Systems MND, SCH #1991103064) to evaluate site-specific impacts of the change to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Site 15A from High Density Residential to Campus Office. The Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures previously adopted for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and with site-specific Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, potential site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a level of insignificance, and therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Consistent with CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelin es sections 15162/15163, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether additional environmental review was required for the proposed project. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substant ial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior EIR and MND or if any other CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review were met. The Initial Study determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those biological impacts. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study is included as Attachment 9. The project is subject to mitigations identified in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR as applicable. The City will monitor the Applicant’s compliance with mitigation measures as the project is constructed and operated under the Mitigation Monitoring Page 4 of 4 and Reporting Program adopted in conjunction with the project approvals. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Attachment 10. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for a public review period from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018. The City received four comment letters during the public review period. The City also received two letters objecting to the CEQA analysis after the close of the comment period just prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Though not required by CEQA, the City prepared responses to the issues raised in the comment letters (Attachment 11). The environmental effects of the project are discussed in detail in the documents referenced above. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with the City’s policy, the Applicant installed a Planning Application Notice Sign along the project frontages. The sign includes details about the project and how to find out more information. The project is also included on the City’s Project Development Website. In accordance with State law, a public hearing notice was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Notices were mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. Notices were also mailed to interested parties, which included those that provided comments regarding the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. A copy of the Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant and posted to the City’s website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 2.13.18 without attachments 2. Ordinance Adopting Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan 3. Resolution Approving a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans 5. Exhibit B to Attachment 3 - Color Renderings 6. Resolution Adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 7. Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes Dated February 13, 2018 8. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 18-02, 18-03 & 18-04 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11. Response to Comments Page 1 of 11 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 13, 2018 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Zeiss Innovation Center - Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2017-00025) Prepared by: Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Zeiss Innovation Center project. The proposed project consist s of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements to be built in two phases. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 11.36 acre site, and a Site Development Review Permit to construct Phase 1. The initial phase includes a 208,650 square foot research and development building, surface parking and related site improvements. A Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: Disclose ex-parte contacts, conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt the following Resolutions: a) Recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution adopting a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zeiss Innovation Center project; b) Recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Zeiss Innovation Center project; and c) Recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center project. DESCRIPTION: Carl Zeiss, Inc. has submitted an application to build a research and development facility on approximately 11.36 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road, as shown in the vicinity map below. The property has a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Campus Office, which allows for the development of a “campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses.” Typical uses include professional and administrative offices, Page 2 of 11 research and development, business and commercial services, and limited light manufacturing. Figure 1: Project Vicinity The project site and the site immediately to the east (formerly SAP/Sybase) were originally one parcel commonly referred to as Site 15. Site 15 previously had a High Density Residential land use designation. In June 2000, Site 15 was subdivided into two parcels. The land use designation for the eastern parcel (Site 15B) was changed from High-Density Residential to Campus Office and approval was granted to develop the two 6-story office buildings totaling approximately 418,000 square feet that exist today. In 2001, Cisco Systems submitted an application to develop Sites 15A (project site) and 16A (located south of Dublin Boulevard). The proposal included a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of Site 15A from High- Density Residential to Campus Office. The total proposed development between Site 15A and 16A combined was 862,000 square feet. A total of 433,500 square feet was assigned to Site 15A. Cisco Systems later withdrew their application; however, the property owner (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) continued processing the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments for Site 15A. In 2003, the City Council approved the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the project site to Campus Office (Resolution 66-03). The City Council also adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project (Resolution 65-03). The Applicant, Carl Zeiss Inc., is currently proposing a 433,090 square foot campus office development on Site 15A. The project would include two office buildings, a Boulevard Persimmon Place Formerly SAP Transit Center Ross Campus Microdental Hacienda Crossings Page 3 of 11 parking structure and associated site, frontage and landscape improvements to be constructed in two phases. The application includes a request for the following: 1. Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire site. 2. Site Development Review Permit for the Phase 1 building and related site improvements. 3. Approval of a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. ANALYSIS: Planned Development Rezone The proposed Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan meets the requirements outlined in Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The proposed PD will establish the detailed development plan for the enti re project site. This includes a list of permitted uses, preliminary site plan, development standards, architectural standards, phasing and preliminary landscape plan. The proposed PD will allow Campus Office uses consistent with the intent of the Campus Office land use designation. The PD includes development standards that would allow up to 433,090 square feet of development on the project site with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.80 combined across Sites 15A and 15B as shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Floor Area Ratio Parcel Lot Area Development Floor Area Ratio Site 15A (APN: 986-0014-010) 494,842 SF 433,090 SF Site 15B (APN: 986-0014-011) 625,843 SF 418,442 SF Total 1,120,685 SF 851,532 SF 76% The PD allows for buildings of up to 5 stories and a building height of no more than 75 feet to the finished floor of the highest story. The maximum building height is 90 feet (tower elements, architectural and articulated design features, solar panels and small - scale wind turbines may extend 10 feet above maximum beyond this height). These development standards are consistent with the existing office buildings to the east on Site 15B (formerly Sybase/SAP). The project is proposed to be developed in two phases as shown in Table 2 and the site plans below. Page 4 of 11 Table 2. Phasing Plan Building/Use Size (Square Feet) Estimated construction timeframe Phase 1 Building 1: R&D, office, warehouse, showroom/demo center, surface parking and related improvements. 208,650 SF 2018-2020 Phase 2 Building 2: R&D, office, warehouse Parking Structure 224,440 SF 2025-2030 Total Project Size 433,090 SF Phase 1 Site Plan Phase 2 Site Plan A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Zoning is included as Attachment 1 with the draft Ordinance included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report. Site Development Review Permit – Phase 1 The first phase of the Zeiss Innovation Center is the 208,650 square foot research and development facility. This facility will contain research and development labs, offices, a demonstration center and show room, warehouse, loading area, shipping and receiving, an employee cafeteria, along with surface parking for 664 vehicles and associated site improvements such as landscaping and frontage improvements. Please refer to Attachments 3 and 4 for the project plans. Site Plan The project site includes seasonal wetlands that occur as nine separate topographic depressions where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rai ny season. The Applicant is proposing to preserve the largest wetland area (W06), which is located in the approximate center of the project site. The site plan was largely influenced by the location of W06 and the Applicant’s decision, in consultation with the environmental resource agencies, to preserve this wetland area (a more in depth Page 5 of 11 discussion of the wetland is included in the landscape section). Refer to Attachment 3, Sheet A1.00 for the site plan and Sheet C2.00 for the location of the wetlands. The proposed building is located at an angle to the site. The longest elevations of the building are oriented to the north and south (facing Dublin Boulevard). At the southwestern corner of the building the setback to the property line is approximately 220 feet from Dublin Boulevard. At the southeastern corner of the building the setback to the property line is approximately 50 feet. Along the western property boundary, the building setback is 20 feet. The portion of the site fronting Dublin Boulevard cons ists of generous tree plantings and a bio-retention area. The bio-retention area located in the southwestern portion of the site covers 11,700 square feet and will treat the stormwater runoff from building rooftops, surface parking lots, roadways and the P hase 2 parking garage. An entry plaza is located north of the building, which includes a water feature and an outdoor seating area. A trash/recycling enclosure, nitrogen/emergency generator enclosure and loading areas are located at the east side of the building. Access, Circulation, and Parking Vehicular access to the project will be provided primarily by an existing shared driveway on Central Parkway called Park Place. A secondary access for delivery and emergency vehicles will be provided through the adjacent Park Place campus by way of an existing driveway on Dublin Blvd. A surface parking lot is proposed north of the building. This surface parking lot will be replaced by a second office building and parking structure when Phase 2 is developed. The Phase 1 site plan identifies 664 parking spaces, and includes 40 spaces for electric vehicles and charging facilities. The proposed building will include research and development labs and offices. Therefore, the parking requirement is a blend of two different use types. The total required parking for the Phase 1 office building (208,650 square feet) is 614 parking spaces as shown in Table 3 below. The project will include 50 more vehicular spaces than is required. The project also provides 35 long-term and 35 short term bicycle parking spaces in both lockers and racks. Table 3: Required Parking Use Parking Requirement Total Area Required Number of Parking Spaces Laboratory Space 1 per 300 square feet 36,483 SF 122 All other areas (office, showroom, cafeteria, etc.) 1 per 350 square feet 172,167 SF 492 Total Stalls Required 614 Total Stalls Provided 664 Surplus 50 Page 6 of 11 The Applicant will also be providing shuttle service to and from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station as part of their Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Building Design/Architecture The north/south orientation of the building was designed to provide naturally lit interior spaces. The building orientation is to the landscaped corner at Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. The east elevation of the building pulls south to accommodate the preserved wetland area on the north side of the building. The proposed office building is 3 stories and is 50 feet to the top of the roof and 62 feet to the top of the roof screen. The project architecture is contemporary with angular lines and includes high quality exterior materials. Overall the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center building design is modern, with extensive glass glazing on all four elevations. Façade treatments include glass panels, façade glazing, translucent glass, and metal panels. Separating the individual glass panels are translucent vertical “fins” on all elevations of the building. The vertical fins will control the light entering the building and create texture on the façade. Different types of glass are used in different areas of the building. Translucent glass is used on the first floor where the labs are located and also surround the stairwells. The translucent glass allows light to pass through; however, the light is diffused so that people and objects on the opposite side are not clearly visible. Transparent glass is used on the first floor at the lobby and on the upper floors where the offices, open space areas and cafeteria are located. Please refer to Attachment 3, Sheets A2.02 and A2.03 for the building elevations. The contemporary design of the Zeiss Innovation Center complements the surrounding area. The adjacent office building, BART station, Persimmon Place, and The Boulevard residential development all have contemporary architecture with color palettes and urban forms that are clean and simple and site designs that emphasizes interaction and access to common spaces. The following are schematic views of the proposed project. Please refer to Attachments 3 and 4 for complete plans. Page 7 of 11 Landscape Plan Landscape features are located on both the north and south sides of the building. To the north of the building is an enhanced seasonal wetland and a surrounding buffer planted with wetland and native plants. The proposed project would avoid and enhance the largest wetland located on the site by planting native wetland vegetation, and preserving the upland buffer around its perimeter. The Applicant is preserving 0.85 View from Dublin Blvd. Zeiss Innovation Center Aerial Entry Plaza Area Page 8 of 11 acres on the site, which includes the 0.58 acre wetland area and an additional 0.27 acre buffer area. The Applicant proposes to create a park-like environment adjacent to the wetland that is accessible to the public. An impervious pathway is proposed to be constructed within the buffer surrounding the seasonal wetland. Located west of the seasonal wetland are a 20-foot wide pedestrian boardwalk, landscaped garden, and a permanent water feature. An outdoor seating area is proposed just north of the building near the water feature, as shown in the rendering above. Landscaping south of the building would include shrubs surrounding a landscaped bio - retention basin. A grove of trees is proposed south of the building. Shrubs and trees are also proposed around the perimeter of the project site. The trees along the perimeter of the site are all 24” box. The interior of the site includes a mix of tree sizes consisting of 15 gallon, 24” box, 36” box and 48” box. Refer to Attachment 3, Sheet L4.01 for additional information on tree species and sizes, and the plant palette. Public Art Compliance The Applicant has elected to provide public art on the project site. The location of the public art has not yet been finalized. The art piece and location is subject to review by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission and approval by the City Council. However, the Applicant is proposing to locate public art near the wetland area where it will be accessible to the public. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 is included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report with the Draft City Council Resolution included as Attachment 6. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE : The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use designation of Campus Office, which allows for research and development uses. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent and surrounding developments. Pedestrian circulation and gathering spaces have been linked together with sidewalks and public streets. In general the proposed project furthers the goals of the Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan by providing a high quality building that is utilizing contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the project is established in compliance with a ll local ordinances and regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution pertaining to the Site Development Review (Attachment 6). Page 9 of 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The development on the project site has been addressed in two prior CEQA documents, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Cisco project. The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and was addressed in the General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. The General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan were adopted by the City Council to encourage orderly growth of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR is a Programmatic EIR and evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin. On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51 -93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative effects of developing in agricultural and open space areas and the basic policy considerations accompanying the change in character from undeveloped to developed lands. In 2001, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate site-specific impacts of the proposal to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Site 15A from High Density Residential to Campus Office. The Initial Study included a greater level of detail than the program EIR. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Cisco Systems MND, SCH #1991103064). It was determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures previously adopted for the Program EIR and with site-specific Mitigation Measures contained in the Initial Study, potential site specific impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a level of insignificance, and therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Consistent with CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162/15163, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether additional environmental review was required for the proposed project. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior EIR and MND or if any other CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review were met. The Initial Study determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those biological impacts. A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is included as Attachment 7 with the draft City Council Resolution included as Attachment 8. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study is included as Attachment 9. Page 10 of 11 The project is subject to mitigations identified in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR as applicable. The City will monitor the Applicant’s compliance with mitigation measures as the project is constructed and operated under the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in conjunction with the project approvals. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Attachment 10. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for a public review period from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018. The City received four comment letters during the public review period. Though not required by CEQA, the City prepared a response to the comments (Attachment 11). The environmental effects of the project are discussed in det ail in the Supplemental MND for the project. However, the following is a summarized list of potential project impacts on biological resources and the mitigation measures recommended by the Supplemental MND to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Potential Impacts – Biological Resources Seasonal wetlands are located on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine separate topographic depressions where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rainy season. Vegetation within the seasonal wetlands is sparse, and dominated by a mixture of predominantly non -native grasses and forbs, all of which are adapted to high levels of disturbance. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to 0.45 acres of seasonal wetlands and preserve the remaining 0.58 acres. In addition to the seasonal wetlands, two locally rare plant species were identified, namely; Congdon’s tarplant and California dock. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a pre-construction survey be conducted for Burrowing Owls prior to any ground disturbance and mitigation for any impacts on the owls. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires that rare plant surveys be conducted within the construction zone and mitigation for impacts on protected plant spec ies. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires the performance of pre-construction breeding bird surveys be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and avoidance of disturbance of any active nests. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires the Applicant to obtain all required resource agency permits and approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net loss of wetland and waters habitat prior to obtaining the first site grading or building permit for development activities involving ground disturbance. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with the City’s policy, the Applicant installed a Planning Application Notice Sign along the project frontages. The sign includes details about the project and how to find out more information. The project is also included on the City’s Project Development Website. In accordance with State law, a public hearing notice was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Notices were mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project site. Notices were also mailed to interested parties, which included the agencies that provided comments on the Page 11 of 11 Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. A copy of the Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant and posted to the City’s website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Recommending Adoption of a Planned Development Zoning Ordinance 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1. Draft City Council Ordinance Adopting Planned Development Zoning 3. Project Plans 4. Color Renderings 5. Resolution Recommending City Council Approval of the Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5. Draft City Council Resolution Approving the Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 7. Resolution Recommending Adoption of a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 7. Draft City Council Resolution Adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 8. Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11. Response to Comments February 2018 1 ORDINANCE NO. XX – 18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2017-00025 (APN 986-0014-010-00) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, Carl Zeiss Inc., proposes to construct the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 (a 208,650 square foot research and development building), and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Zeiss Innovation Center Project” or the “Project”; and B. The project site is approximately 11.36 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (APN 986-0014-010-00). C. The project is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference). D. In 2001, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to evaluate whether additional environmental review than in the Eastern Dublin EIR was needed for a proposed Cisco development project. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH 1991103064). The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Statement of Overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the change in the General Plan designation and zoning on the project site to Campus Office on April 15, 2003 (Resolution No. 65 -03, incorporated herein by reference). E. The City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which 2 would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco MND or whether any standards for supplemental en vironmental review were met. F. Upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those biological impacts. G. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018. H. The City of Dublin received four comment letters du ring the public review period. I. Following a public hearing on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-02 recommending that the City Council adopt the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. J. Following a public hearing on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-03, recommending approval of the Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. K. A Staff Report, dated March 6, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, for the City Council. L. On March 6, 2018, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the proposed Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard . M. The City Council considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and related prior CEQA documents and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the project. SECTION 2: FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The Zeiss Innovation Center Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the Zeiss Innovation Center project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in th e surrounding area in that the site will provide new office buildings in an area that has similar uses nearby and is also adjacent to existing and future workplaces and residential neighborhoods. 3 B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Mu nicipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Zeiss Innovation Center project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the proposed site plan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will provide employment opportunities to the surrounding neighborhoods. T he proposed site plan has taken into account a land use type and density that is compatible with the adjacent areas and densities. 2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed in that the project site is flat with improved public streets on three sides and served by existing public utilities. The project site conditions are documented in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and prior certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the project will implement all adopted mitigation measures , as applicable. There are no site conditions that were identified in the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study that will present an impediment to development of the site for the proposed campus office development. 3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. The project uses are compatible with surrounding uses. 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in that the proposed use as a research and development facility is consistent with the existing Campus Office land use designations for the site. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds as follows: 1. Pursuant to the California Environmen tal Quality Act, the City Council adopted a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program via Resolution xx-18 on March 6, 2018, prior to approving the project. SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning District and supersedes and replaces the previously adopted zoning (Resolution 105-85): 11.36 acres located on the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road . (Assessor Parcel Numbers 986-0014-010-00) (“the Property”). 4 A map of the rezoning area is shown below: SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 11.36 acre project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the St age 1/Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. The following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans meet all the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans as set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan 1. Statement of Uses. PD – Campus Office Permitted Uses  Corporate, professional, technical and administrative offices.  Research and development laboratories and offices.  Storage and sale of material produced on the site.  Light manufacturing and processing that is conducted entirely indoors and that produce no noxious odors, hazardous materials or excessive noise .  Accessory and incidental amenity uses to offices, including but not limited to employee cafeterias, employee fitness centers, day care centers, employee training facilities and showroom/demonstration center. 5 Conditional Uses  Community, religious and institutional facilities.  In-patient and out-patient health facilities.  Public facilities and uses.  Retail commercial establishments to serve site users.  Eating and drinking establishments (excluding employee-serving facilities). 2. Sites Area & Proposed Densities. a. 11.36 acres b. 433,090 square feet 3. Phasing Plan. Building/Use Size (SF)* Phase 1 Building 1 208,650 Phase 2 Building 2 224,440 Phase 2 Parking Structure Total Project Size 433,090 SF *The square footage allocated to Phases 1 and 2 can be adjusted with approval by the Community Development Director provided that the project remains consistent with the development standards and overall square footage of development. Phase 1 Site Plan 6 Phase 2 Site Plan 4. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Consistency. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Campus Office, which permits a floor area ratio of 0.25 to 0.80. The FAR for the site is based upon the combined square footages for entire Site 15 (15A: APN 986-0014-010& 15B: APN 986- 0014-011). 5. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project is not subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing because the regulations apply only to residential development projects of 20 units or more. 6. Aerial Photo. 7 7. Site Plan (Phases 1 & 2). 8. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to the project: Maximum Building Height 5 floors and no more than 75 feet to the finished floor of the highest story. Maximum building height is 90 feet (tower elements, architectural and articulated design features, solar panels and small-scale wind turbines may extend 10 feet above maximum beyond this height). Maximum Building Area 433,0901 Maximum Floor Area 0.802 Minimum Setbacks Along Dublin Blvd: 50 feet Along Arnold Road: 20 feet Along Central Parkway: 20 feet Parking Stall Dimensions Standards Full Size Space: 8’6”x18 Compact Car Space: 8’6”x15 (1) Excludes the parking garage (2) Floor area ratio for the site is based upon the combined square footage for Site 15A & 15B 9. Architectural Standards. The project’s architectural style is modern with clean lines and extensive glass glazing on all elevations. 8 The architectural design of the project shall reflect the following standards:  Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the project and to complement its surroundings.  Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting base form for the buildings.  Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements, signs, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level.  Provide functional outdoor spaces where people will gather and socialize, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide an appropriate urban scale for the development.  Develop an architectural vocabulary that will be represented in future phases of the development to create a sense of harmony between building forms and landscape. Illustrative examples of architectural style: 9 10. Preliminary Landscape Plan. The conceptual landscape design of the project shall reflect the following standards. The landscape design shall:  Create a park-like environment that is accessible to the public.  Provide interpretive and educational components to enrich visitor’s experience on the site.  Treat the site’s storm water in a set of basins throughout the site that are linked to the site’s water infrastructure.  Create a visual buffer and soften the edge between the public realm and the site.  Utilize plants that provide a year round vegetated landscape with seasonality, color, and interest for an attractive visual environment. 11. Transportation Demand Management Plan. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures will be implemented by the property owner to reduce potential impacts on the City’s road network. The TDM measures are programs and solutions that will reduce drive 10 alone trips to and from the site. A TDM goal of 20% trip reduction has been determined for the project. The TDM Plan is subject to review and approval by the City’s Tra nsportation and Operations Manager. The implementation of the TDM measures and the reduction of vehicle trips will be monitored by the City’s Transportation and Operations Manager through the approval of a yearly TDM report prepared by the property owner. The Plan shall include the following elements: a. Identification of the property owner’s TDM Coordinator at the site. b. A toolkit of TDM measures to reduce drive alone trips to and from the site and a commitment to implement each measure. c. Implementation plan and monitoring procedures. d. Requirement to provide annual traffic monitoring that will include vehicle counts at the driveways. e. Conformance to the toolkit measures. f. Additional measures to increase TDM adherence if the target of 20% is not met. g. Potential penalties, if the target is not met. SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _________ day of _____________ 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. xx - 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR PHASE 1 OF THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2017-00025 (APN 986-0014-010-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Carl Zeiss, Inc., submitted a Planning Application for the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 (208,650 square foot building), and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Zeiss Innovation Center Project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 11.36 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (APN 986-0014-010-00); and WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the project plans and renderings, attached as Exhibits A and B, illustrate the site layout and elevations for an approximately 208,650 square foot building consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Panned Development zonin g proposed as part of this project; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review Permit application collectively defines this project and is available and on file in the Community Development Department; 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 is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, in 2001, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to e valuate whether additional environmental review than in the Eastern Dublin EIR was needed for a proposed Cisco development project. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative 2 Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH 1991103064). The City Co uncil adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Statement of Overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the change in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation and zoning on the project site to Campus Office on April 15, 2003 (Resolution No. 65-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco MND or whether any standards for supplemental environmental review were met ; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declarati on was prepared to analyze those biological impacts; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received four comment letters during the public review period; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-02 recommending that the City Council adopt the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Com mission adopted Resolution 18-03 recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Zoning district with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development plan, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-04 recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review for Phase 1 o f the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated March 6, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the p roject, including the Planned Development Rezoning and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Council; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018 the City Council adopted Resolution xx-18 adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the project; and 3 WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the Site Development Review Permit application, on March 6, 2018 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review application; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following Site Development Review findings and determinations regarding the Zeiss Innovation Center project: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) the project provides an orderly, attractive and harmonious development compatible with the site’s surrounding properties; 2) the development gives thoughtful consideration to building location, architectural and landscape design and theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on -site circulation, parking and traffic impact; 3) the project includes contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan ; 4) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and allowable uses as stated in the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 5) the project includes streetscape enhancements to compliment those already in place; and 6) the project is consistent with the General Plan and Ea stern Dublin Specific Plan. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate pedestrian scale with the proposed layout of buildings and landscaping and parking are well-suited to the proposed use; 2) the overall design of the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 3) the overall project is consistent with the total development potentia l for the site as stated in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 4) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan Land Use designations of Campus Office which allows for research and development uses; and 5) the proposed project meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes residential and commercial uses. C. The design of the Project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot(s) in which the Project is proposed because: 1) The architecture and landscape design for the p roject provides an appropriate pedestrian scale and the landscaping and parking areas are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the 4 General Plan Land Use designation of Campus Office which allows for research and development uses; 4) the project avoids and enhances a 0.58 acre wetland located on the project site by planting native vegetation and preserving the upland buffer around the wetland perimeter; and 5) the project will result in an attractive, campus- like setting for Zeiss employees. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project will provide a research and development facility and be a benefit to the Dublin community; 2) the project is within the density requirements of the Planned Development Zoning District, the General Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the project provides for its own infrastructure and required services and is designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking to support the uses; and 4) the proposed density of the site is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the project site is relatively flat; 2) the roadway and utility infrastructure to se rve the site already exists; 3) the project avoids and enhances a 0.58 acre wetland located on the project site by planting native vegeta tion and preserving the upland buffer around the wetland perimeter; and 4) future approval of grading and improvement plans will enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in accordance with City policies and regulations. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the architectural style and materials will be consistent and compatible with the contemporary architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other commercial and residential projects in the vicinity of the project site; 2) façade treatments include glass panels, façade glazing, translucent glass and metal panels; 3) the project is utilizing contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and 4) the size and scale of the development will be sim ilar to other buildings in the project vicinity. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the Project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the project site emphasizes the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment that will include a variety of outdoor amenities for employees; 2) the project avoids and enhances a 0.58 acre wetland located on the project site by planting native vegetation and preserving the upland buffer around the wetland perimeter; 3) the project includes an outdoor seating area located north of the building; 4) a landscaped bio-retention area is provided in the southwestern portion of the site; 5) landscaping will be provided throughout the project site; and 6) the project landscaping is consistent with other commercial development in the vicinity and conforms to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 5 H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including driveways, pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi- modal travel in mind; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and efficient use of these facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center as shown on the project plans date stamped received on January 3, 2018 and included as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this Resolution, subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. # CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: PLANNING 1. Approval. This Site Development Review (SDR) approval is for the Zeiss Innovation Center located on Site 15A (APN: 986-0014-010-00) at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area (PLPA-2017- 00025). The SDR approval is for Phase 1, which includes a 208,650 square foot research and development building and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements. This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the SDR project plans, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, prepared by Gensler Architecture, BKF Engineers, and Bionic Landscape Architect dated received January 3, 2018, on file in the Community Development Department, and other plans, text, color and materials boards relating to this SDR and as specified by the following Conditions of Approval for this project. This approval is subject to adopting the related Planned Development Zoning. PL Ongoing 2. Effective Date. This SDR approval becomes effective once the companion Planned Development Zoning District has been approved by the City Council and becomes effective. PL Ongoing 3. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Site Development Review shall lapse and become PL One Year After Effective Date 6 null and void. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Time Extension. The original approving decision- maker may, upon the Applicant’s written request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original hearing body. PL Prior to Expiration Date 5. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review Permit, the approved plans and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. PL On-going 6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL On-going 7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Applicant/Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. Various Building Permit Issuance 8. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. PW Building Permit Issuance and Grading Permit Issuance 9. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable Various Building Permit 7 fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. Approved Development Agreement supersedes where applicable. Issuance 10. Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant’s/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. ADM On-going 11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. PL, PW On-going 12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean-up & disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean and litter-free site. PL On-going 13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going 14. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire risers, and/or mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by landscaping and/or architectural features. Any roof -mounted equipment shall be completely screened from adjacent street PL Building Permit Issuance 8 view by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 15. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program is required prior to installation of any project related signage. The wall signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign sizes, content, materials, and construction shall be shown in the separate sign package. PL Installation of Project Related Signage 16. Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons. Temporary Promotional Banner Signs and Balloons shall only be permitted after first securing an approved Temporary Promotional Sign Permit. All temporary on-site signage shall be subject to the sign regulations contained in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going 17. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Temporary Use Permit prior to the establishment of any construction trailer, storage shed, or container units on the Project site. PL Establishment of the Temporary Use 18. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to acquire and install public art on the Project site in accordance with Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The value of the public art Project is required to equal or exceed 0.5% of the building valuation (exclusive of land) for the entire Project. The Building Official will determine the building valuation at the time of Plan Check submittal for the first building permit on site. An agreement that sets forth the ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and insurance coverage for all public art on site shall be executed prior to occupancy. All public art installations are subject to approval of the City Council upon recommendation by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission. PL Art to be installed prior to Occupancy 19. Long-Term Bicycle Parking. Any exterior long term bicycle facility shall be designed to complement the location in which it is sited (i.e. building architecture or the landscaping areas). Final design and material shall be approval by Staff. PL Building Permit Issuance 20. Emergency Vehicle Access Aisle. The material of the Emergency Vehicle Access Aisles (located adjacent to the building and the wetland) shall consist of a material that is to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. PL Approval of Improvement Plans 21. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with the Zeiss Innovation Center Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted by City Council Resolution xx-18, including all mitigation measures contained therein. The MND is on file with the Community Development PL On-going 9 Department. PLANNING - LANDSCAPE 22. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan. Plans shall comply with Chapter 8.72 of the Zoning Ordinance and be generally consistent with the project plans attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and date stamped received on January 3, 2018. A Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan prepared and stamped by a State licensed landscape architect or registered engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The landscape plans shall be prepared on an accurately surveyed topographic plan consistent with the architectural, site and civil plans and show location of utilities including street lights, fire hydrants, drain inlets, water meters, vaults, and transformers including locations of underground utilities including water, sewer and storm drain. Landscape and irrigation plans shall provide for a recycled water system. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 23. Site Improvements & Amenities. Site improvements and amenities, including light fixtures, shown on the landscape plans shall be clearly identified to include materials, colors, and finishes to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 24. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The Applicant/Developer shall meet all requirements of the City of Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 25. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The Applicant/Developer shall submit written documentation to the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 26. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The landscape design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning 60 points or more and meeting the 14 required practices in the Bay- Friendly Landscape Scorecard. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 27. Traffic Visibility Area. No fence, wall, hedge, sign or other structure, shrubbery, mounds of earth, or other visual obstruction shall be over 30 inches in height above the nearest curb elevation shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the Traffic Visibility Area. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 28. Landscape Screening. Landscape screening is of a height and density so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years from the time of planting. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 10 Screening, including the screening of utility areas from roadways, shall conform to Chapter 8.72 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 29. Landscape Edges. Concrete curbs or bands shall be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces. The design width and depth of the concrete edge to be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 30. Landscape Borders. All landscaped areas in the parking areas shall be bordered by a concrete curb that is at least 6 inches high and 6 inches wide. Curbs adjacent to parking spaces must be 12 inches wide. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width curb to curb. PL, PW Approval of Final Landscape Plans 31. Mounds & Berms. Slopes of mounds and berms shall not exceed 3:1 ratio, or 3 feet in height. Slopes 6:1 and over shall be labelled and contours for berms, swales, drainage ponds, and water quality elements, etc. shall be shown on the landscape plans. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 32. Tree Composite Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall submit composite utility, lighting, joint trench, and tree plan to resolve potential conflicts. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 33. Street Trees. Street tree species shall conform to City of Dublin Standard Plans and Chapter 8.72 of the Dublin Municipal Code. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 34. Street Light and Trees. Maintain approximately 15’ clearance between streetlights and street trees. Where such clearance is not practical for design considerations, the spacing between the trees shall be increased and the size of the tree shall be increased to 36” box minimum to reduce conflict between the lighting and foliage. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 35. Landscape Maturity. The landscape plans shall show plants at the mature size and spaced to accommodate minimum spread adjacent to buildings, sidewalks, roads or other obstructions. In addition, plants shall be spaced to fill in location within six (6) years. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 36. Plant Standards. That unless unusual circumstances prevail, all trees on the site shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. All trees that are on the exterior building perimeter shall be 24” box minimum. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 37. Root Barriers & Tree Staking. The Landscape Plans shall provide details showing root barriers and tree staking will be installed that meet current City specifications. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 38. Water Features. Water features shall use recirculating water systems and recycled water. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 39. Existing Landscape Improvements. Existing landscape improvements adjacent to or within the project shall be shown and labeled on the plans. Protection notes shall be included to protect existing landscape improvements. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 11 40. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement. The Applicant/Developer shall complete and submit to the Dublin Planning Department the Standard Plant Material, Irrigation and Maintenance Agreement. PL Approval of Final Landscape Plans 41. Maintenance of Landscape. All landscape areas on the site shall be enhanced and properly maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written approval from the Community Development Director. PL On-going BUILDING CONDITIONS 42. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. B Through Completion 43. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in phases, then all physical improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 60 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. B Occupancy of any affected building 44. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans to the Building & Safety Division for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. B Issuance of Building Permits 45. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. B Issuance of building permits 46. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B Occupancy of Unit 12 ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the main building. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Chief Building Official and Director of Community Development. 47. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. B Through Completion 48. Addressing a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight main entry door opening on plans. Provide information for each tenant space. 3 copies 11x17 sheets. b) Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Commercial Security Code. c) Address will be required on all doors leading to the exterior of the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. B Prior to release of addresses Prior to permitting Prior to occupancy 49. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to provide observation services for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Scheduling the final frame inspection 50. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. B Permit issuance 51. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with 2 reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved plan. B 30 days after permit and each revision issuance 52. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. B Through Completion 53. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code. Show the location of the Solar Zone on the site plan. Detail the orientation of the Solar Zone. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code. B Through Completion 54. Accessary Structures. Building permits are required for all trash enclosures and associated amenities / structures and are required to meet the accessibility and building codes. B Through Completion 55. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.32, if the design of the project uses yards for allowable square footage increase, the owner shall file with the Building Official B Building Permit Issuance 13 a Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an Oversized Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no improvements. After execution by the owner and Building Official, such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder’s Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building remains or unless otherwise released by authority of the Building Official. 56. Emergency Access - See Chapter 7.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code for complete requirement. Vehicle Gates. Private roads and parking areas or structures controlled by unmanned mechanical parking type gates shall be provided with police emergency access by Opticom LED Emitter and providing the gate access code for distribution to emergency responders. The control box for the code device shall be mounted on a control pedestal consisting of a metal post/pipe, which shall be installed at a height of 36 to 42 inches to the center of the keypad and a minimum of 15 feet (4.6m) from the entry / exit gate. It shall be located on the driver’s side of the road or driveway and accessible in such a manner as to not require a person to exit their vehicle to reach it, nor to drive on the wrong side of the road or driveway, not to require any back-up movements in order to enter / exit the gate. The gates accesses devices shall be designed and installed to allow for entry through the vehicular gate under three different and unique situations: a. The system is in services and under normal operations. b. A power failure has occurred and battery powered convenience open systems are employed. c. A power failure has occurred and the convenience open system has failed (dead or low charged battery). Pedestrian gates. All lockable pedestrian gates shall provide for policy emergency access utilizing an approved key switch device or approved Knoxbox, which shall be installed in a manner approved by the Chief Building Official. B Occupancy & On-going FIRE PREVENTION 57. Building and Fire Code Requirements. Construction shall comply with the Building and Fire Code Requirements in effect at the time of Building Permit submittal or improvement plans. F Building Permit Issuance & On-going 14 58. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements. In accordance with the Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans and specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This may be a deferred submittal. F Building Permit Issuance 59. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required. A Fire Alarm Detection System shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes. F Building Permit Issuance 60. Fire Extinguishers. Extinguishers shall be visible and unobstructed. Signage shall be provided to indicate fire extinguisher locations. The number and location of extinguishers shall be shown on the plans. Additional fire extinguishers may be required by the Fire Inspector. Fire extinguishers shall meet a minimum classification of 2A 10BC. Extinguishers weighing 40 pounds or less shall be mounted no higher than 5 feet above the floor measured to the top of the extinguisher. F Occupancy 61. FD Building Key Box. A Fire Department Key Box shall be installed at the main entrance to the building. Note these locations on the plans. The key box shall be installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be sized to hold the master key to the facility as well as keys for rooms not accessible by the master key. Specialty keys, such as the fire alarm control box key and elevator control keys shall also be installed in the box. The key box door and necessary keys are to be provided to the Fire Inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector will then lock the keys in the box. Key boxes and switches may be ordered directly from the Knox Company. F Occupancy 62. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle entrance and exit roads shall be approved for Fire Department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans shall be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should clearly be incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary. Building Permit Issuance 63. FD Gate Key Box/Switch. Each manually operated gate that serves as a means of fire access shall have Occupancy 15 installed a Knox Key Box accessible from the entrance side of the gate. Where the locking method of the gate is by a chain a Knox padlock shall be installed on the chain. The key box door and necessary keys are to be provided to the Fire Inspector upon the final inspection. All electrically controlled gates shall be provided with an emergency gate over-ride key switch for Fire Department access. 64. M Means of Egress. Exit signs shall be visible and illuminated with emergency lighting when the building is occupied. F Occupancy & On-going 65. Maximum Occupant Load. Posting of room capacity is required for any occupied load of 50 or more persons. Submittal of a seating plan on durable placard is required prior to final occupancy. F Occupancy 66. Interior Finish. Wall and ceiling interior finish material shall meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of the California Fire Code. Interior finishes will be field verified upon final inspection. If the product is not field marked and the marking visible for inspection, maintain the product cut sheets and packaging that show proof of the products flammability and flame- spread ratings. Decorative materials shall be fire retardant. F Occupancy 67. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an illuminated area. The address characters shall be contrasting to their background. If address is placed on glass, the numbers shall be on the exterior of the glass and a contrasting background placed behind the numbers. Building Address. The building shall be provided with all addresses or the assigned address range so as to be clearly visible from either direction of travel on the street the address references. The address characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height by 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary depending on the setbacks and visibility. F Occupancy 68. High Pile Permit Application. Prior to High Piled Storage occurring in the warehouse, a Fire Permit allowing such storage shall be obtained. A completed High Pile Permit Storage Application shall be submitted to the Fire Department along with a complete Warehouse Storage and Layout Submittal. The permit will be issued once all work for such storage has been completed and inspected. F High Pile Storage 69. Hood & Duct Fire Extinguishing System & K Fire Extinguisher. In accordance with the Fire Code, a ventilating hood and duct system shall be provided in accordance with the Mechanical Code for commercial-type food heat-processing equipment that produces grease-laden vapors. An automatic fire extinguishing system shall protect the hood and duct system and the cooking appliances below. Plans and F Building Permit Issuance 16 specifications showing detailed mechanical design of fire protection system shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. 70. Hazardous Materials. An inventory statement (HMIS) for any / all hazardous materials for approval of process / storage / handling requirements shall be provided. The project shall meet the requirements of the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health as Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The Material Safety Data Sheets, Hazardous Materials Business Plan and all required documentation shall be provided to CUPA for permitting process. F Building Permit Issuance 71. Hazardous Materials Management Plan. A facility site plan showing storage and use areas, maximum amount of material stored or used in each area, container sizes, storage arrangement including the location and dimensions of aisles shall be provided. F Building Permit Issuance 72. Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement. A permit application with Chemical name, trade names, hazardous ingredients, hazard classification, MSDS, U.N. and C.A.S. number, maximum quantity on-site at one time, storage conditions related to the storage type, temperature and pressure shall be submitted. The storage, use and handling of hazardous materials in quantities not exceeding the maximum allowable quantity per control shall be in accordance with CFC. F Building Permit Issuance 73. Flammable Finishes.  A Fire Permit is required for application of flammable or combustible paint, varnish, lacquer, stain, fiberglass resins or other flammable or combustible liquid applied by means of spray apparatus in a continuous or intermittent process.  Electrical wiring and equipment shall be of an explosion proof type approved for use in hazardous locations. (Class 1 Division 1 or Class 2 Division 1).  Spray booths and spray rooms shall be protected by an approved automatic fire- extinguishing system. Protection shall also extend to exhaust plenums, exhaust ducts and both sides of dry filters when such filters are used.  Mechanical ventilation shall be kept in operation at all times while spraying operations are being conducted and for a sufficient time thereafter to allow vapors from drying coated articles and finishing material residue to be exhausted. Spraying equipment shall be interlocked with the ventilation of the flammable vapor areas such that spraying operations cannot be conducted unless the F Occupancy 17 ventilation system is in operation.  Ventilation systems shall be designed, installed and maintained such that the average air velocity over the open face of the booth, or booth cross section in the direction of the airflow during spraying operations, shall not be less than 100 feet per minute. 74. Automatic Shutoffs for Ducts. Air moving systems supplying air in excess of 2,000 cubic feet per minute to enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. Automatic shutoff shall be accomplished by interrupting the power source of the air moving equipment upon detection of smoke in the main supply air duct served by such equipment. Smoke detectors shall be labeled by an approved agency approved and listed by California State Fire Marshal for air duct installation and shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s approved installation instructions. Duct detectors shall be accessible for cleaning by providing access doors. Duct detector location shall be permanently and clearly identified. F Occupancy 75. Stationary Storage Battery Systems. Stationary storage battery systems having an electrolyte capacity of more than 50 gallons for flooded lead acid, nickel cadmium and valve-regulated lead acid, or 1,000 pounds for lithium-ion, used for facility standby power, emergency power or uninterrupted power supplies, shall comply with CFC Chapter 6. F 76. Generators. The following shall apply: 1. Stationary generators for emergency and standby power systems shall be listed in accordance with UL 2200. 2. Generators shall be installed according to Article of the California Electrical Code. 3. Portable and vehicle mounted generators shall be bonded and grounded in accord with Article of the California Electrical Code. 4. Code required Standby Power Systems shall be according to the California Electrical Code 5. Non-code required optional standby power systems shall be according to Article 702 of the California Electrical Code. 6. Life safety branch circuits shall be in accordance with Article of the California Electrical Code. 7. All electrical wiring, devices, appliances and other equipment shall be in accord with the California Electrical Code. F Building Permit Issuance & On-going 77. Electrical Equipment, Wiring & Hazards. 1. Electrical wiring, devices, appliances and other equipment that is modified or damaged and constitutes an electrical shock or fire hazard shall not be used. F Occupancy & On-going 18 2. A working space of not less than 30 inches in width, 36 inches in depth and 78 inches in height shall be provided in front of electrical service equipment. No storage of any materials shall be located within the designated working space. 3. Doors into electrical control panel rooms shall be marked with a plainly visible and legible sign stating ELECTRICAL ROOM. The disconnecting means for each service, feeder or branch circuit originating on a switchboard or panel board shall be legibly and durably marked to indicate its purpose. 4. Extension cords and flexible cords shall not be a substitute for permanent wiring. Extension cords shall be used only with portable appliances. 78. Fire Safety During Construction & Demolition. 1. Clearance to combustibles from temporary heating devices shall be maintained. Devices shall be fixed in place and protected from damage, dislodgement or overturning in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 2. Smoking shall be prohibited except in approved areas. Signs shall be posted “NO SMOKING” in a conspicuous location in each structure or location in which smoking is prohibited. 3. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work. 4. Flammable and combustible liquid storage areas shall be maintained clear of combustible vegetation and waste materials. F During Construction PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL – PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 79. Geotechnical Report. Applicant shall submit Design Level Geotechnical Report including pavement design sections. PW First Submittal of Improvement Plans 80. Drive Aisle. The exiting drive aisle at the northeast of the site shall be redesigned to be oriented approximately 90 degrees to Park Place. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 81. Shuttle Parking. Plans show the addition of shuttle parking stalls in the parking lot. The Applicant shall submit specifications for the shuttle to be used and an associated exhibit to verify parking stall dimensions are adequate and maneuverability of the shuttle within parking lot is feasible. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 82. Parking Stalls. Parking stalls at 90 degrees to each other at the northwest of the parking lot and the southwest of the parking lot shall have an additional two feet in width. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 83. Hydromodification. The site is subject to hydromodification. The Applicant shall submit BAHM PW Approval of Improvement Plans 19 calculations for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 84. Adjacent Site Improvements. a. Improvements are required at the adjacent site to the east to allow for ingress/egress to and from the site from the Dublin Boulevard entrance. b. The Applicant shall obtain and submit to the City written authorization from the adjacent property owners for construction of the improvements. c. The Applicant shall also be responsible for construction of these improvements. d. On-site improvements shall be coordinated with the existing and proposed improvements on the adjacent property to the east of the site. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 85. Additional Information on Plans. Plans shall show additional sections, details, slopes and spot elevations to clarify grading, drainage, improvements to be constructed, and conform to existing conditions. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 86. Storm Drain Pipe Angles. Storm drain pipe system design shall not allow for inflow/outflow connections of pipes at structures to be less than 90 degrees. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 87. Storm Drain Pipes at Foundations. Storm drain pipes located adjacent to the building foundations shall be reviewed by a Structural and Geotechnical Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 88. Utility Crossings. All utility crossings shall be labelled on the plans with minimum clearances maintained. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 89. Pavement Slopes. Slopes equal or greater than 1.5% at AC pavement are desirable to promote positive drainage and prevent ponding of runoff, with minimum slopes at 1%. Concrete gutter slope design desired at 1% with minimum slope at 0.7%. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 90. Valley Gutters. Valley gutters shall be constructed at all swales in the asphalt pavement area in the parking lot. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 91. Storm Drain System Information. Provide additional information at storm drain system, including invert elevations and hydraulic grade line elevation at storm drain structures, and slope and length at storm drain pipes. Provide hydrology/hydraulic design calculations conforming to current Alameda County Flood Control District Hydrology and Hydraulic Manual. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 92. Landscape Area Grading and Drainage. Provide grading and drainage in all landscape areas. Runoff will not be allowed to drain across sidewalks. PW Approval of Improvement/Landscape Plans 93. Loading Dock Drainage. Provide drainage at loading dock, connecting to storm drain system. Also provide bypass and diversion valves in case of spill as noted under “Loading Docks” in Part 6 of the Stormwater Requirements Checklist. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 94. Grading Contours. Proposed contours shall be PW Approval of 20 consistent with proposed drainage patterns (i.e. swales) and conform to existing contours at perimeter of site. Improvement Plans/Issuance of Grading Permit 95. Stormwater Treatment. 1. Design of the biotreatment area shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Handbook. 2. Applicant shall provide a narrative on the Stormwater Management Plan describing the stormwater treatment design, methodology used, sizing calculations and trash capture. 3. Applicant shall submit calculations and documentation for review and approval, supporting stormwater treatment measure sizing and hydromodification. 4. Planting and irrigation within stormwater treatment facility shall conform to current requirements. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 96. Trash Capture. Trash capture (C.10) at the site shall be located to capture trash generated from all drainage areas at the site. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 97. Accessible Walkways. All walkways and seating areas are required to meet current accessibility requirements. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 98. Lighting and Utility Conflicts. Lighting, utilities, and tree locations shall be located and coordinated to avoid conflicts. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 99. Monument Signs. All Monument signs shall be located outside of the public rights-of-way and existing Public Service Easements. PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Master Sign Program 100. Bicycle Parking. Provide bicycle parking details for both short and long term parking that would show all offsets from adjacent buildings, curbs and structures. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 101. Signing and Striping Plan. Construction Plans shall include, but not limited to, Signing and Striping Plan and Photometrics Plan for review and approval. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 102. Trash Enclosure. a. The compactor shall be eliminated from the site. The Applicant shall submit an updated plan with revised trash enclosure incorporating this change and redesign. b. The Applicant shall complete and submit the attached Waste Enclosure Requirements Checklist and incorporate required items in the updated submittal. Waste Handling Standards can be found on the City’s website through the following link: http://dublin.ca.gov/1932/Development-Resources c. The design of the Trash Enclosure shall conform to requirements set forth in the Waste Handling Standards and the Dublin Municipal Code Section 7.98 Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards. PW Approval of Improvement Plans/Issuance of Building Permit 21 d. The Trash Enclosure is subject to review and approval by the Environmental Services Division. e. All dumpsters shall be readily accessible for servicing when the enclosure doors are open. 103. Repair of Damaged Areas. The Applicant will be required to remediate/repair portions of the adjacent public streets damaged by any construction activity (including utility trench cuts), as determined by the Public Works Department. Remediation may include pavement treatment such as a slurry seal or a grind and overlay. Limits shall be determined by the Public Works Department based on the location and number of street cuts, and may extend to the nearest lane line, centerline or median. PW Acceptance of Improvements 104. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. A TDM Plan is required to meet the 20% trip reductions allocated to the project trips. The TDM Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director or his/her designee. All costs associated with the TDM measures will be funded by the Applicant and/or the owner of the development on an ongoing basis. The reduction in project trips with implementation of TDM measures will be monitored by the City through the approval of a yearly TDM Report. Applicant and/or the owner shall submit a yearly report on/or before September 30 of each year detailing the current status of the TDM measures, any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and the status of trip reduction amounts extracted from the driveway counts and surveys. At a minimum, elements of the TDM Plan shall include the following: a. Assignment of a TDM Coordinator at the site. b. The TDM reduction toolkit and commitment to implement each measure. c. A TDM implementation plan monitoring procedure. d. Annual traffic monitoring that will include vehicle counts at the driveways. e. Conformance to the toolkit measures. f. TDM conformance by measure. g. Measures to increase TDM adherence if the target of 20% is not met. h. Potential penalties, if the target is not met. PW Issuance of first Occupancy Permit 105. Phase 1 Offsite Improvements. a. The Applicant shall construct frontage improvements with Phase 1 construction including landscaping and irrigation in parkway strips, sidewalks and trail along Dublin Boulevard, Arnold Road and Central Parkway along the project frontages. b. All new and modified pedestrian curb ramps within the public rights-of-way shall be directional pedestrian ramps (dual pedestrian ramps) PW Approval of Improvement Plans / Issuance of Encroachment Permit 22 providing access to a single crosswalk, including the intersection of Central Parkway and Park Place and the southeast corner of Arnold Drive and Central Parkway. c. Dual Pedestrian Ramps shall be constructed at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. Pedestrian ramps providing access to the Class I trail along Dublin Boulevard shall have a minimum of 8 feet wide ramp and landing area. Pedestrian ramp transitions (flares) at this corner shall be separated by at least 5 feet. The Applicant shall coordinate the design with that shown on the Improvement Plans for Arnold Road prepared for the Boulevard Project. (Approval of Improvement Plans) d. Construction Plans shall include intersection details including striping and signing for the intersection of Central Parkway and Park Place. e. All landscaping at the intersection of Central Parkway and Park Place must be maintained no higher than 30 inches inside the Corner Sight Distance that must be calculated using the Highway Design Manal procedures for a speed of 35 MPH. Provide these details on a plan with landscaping overlaid on it. Trees could be planted inside the Corner Sight Distance zone as long as the canopy can be maintained at 14 feet from the travel way. f. Fiber Optic signal interconnect conduit shall be installed along Central Parkway from Arnold Road to Hacienda Drive. g. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval of all offsite improvements. h. Improvements and timing of construction shall be coordinated with improvements constructed along Arnold Road with the development on the west side of Arnold Road, the Boulevard project. 106. Phase 2 Offsite Improvements (reference only). Traffic Signal: A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Central Parkway and the entrance to the project. Upon completion of the traffic signal installation, the developer is eligible for reimbursement of funds previously deposited with City of Dublin contributing to the cost of traffic signal construction at this intersection. Funds available for reimbursement are limited to only those on deposit with the City, and are not intended to fully compensate for all traffic signal installation costs. PW Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 2 PUBLIC WORKS – STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 107. Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval contained below (“Standard Condition”) unless specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of PW On-going 23 Approval above. 108. Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Applicant/Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). PW On-going PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 109. Improvement Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for all public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the development, as determined by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit issuance 110. Security. Applicant/Developer shall provide faithful performance security to guarantee the improvements, as determined by the City Engineer (Note: The performance security shall remain in effect until one year after final inspections). PW Grading Permit issuance 111. O&M Agreement. Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2- 2015-0049, requires the property owner enter into an Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City of Dublin to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained and to guarantee the owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all water treatment measures installed as part of the project. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. PW Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS – FEES 112. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. PW Building Permit issuance PUBLIC WORKS – PERMITS 113. Encroachment Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the street right of way. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City PW Start of Work 24 Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. 114. Grading Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Grading/ Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading. PW Start of Work 115. Non-City Agency Permits. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, DSRSD, BART, as applicable, and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. PW Start of Work PUBLIC WORKS - SUBMITTALS 116. Plan Submittals. All submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of the “City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements”, the “City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List,” current Public Works and industry standards. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 117. Submittals to non-City Agencies. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 118. Geotechnical Report. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections and grading recommendations for the development for the development. PW Approval of Improvement Plans, and Grading Plans 119. Master Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” files for the project. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. PW Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS - EASEMENTS AND ACCESS RIGHTS 120. Abandonment of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and right-of-ways within the development that will no longer be used. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 121. Acquisition of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on their property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies furnished to the City Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 25 PUBLIC WORKS - GRADING 122. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. PW Issuance of Grading Permit 123. Retaining Walls. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of the upper lot. PW Approval of Grading Plans PUBLIC WORKS - IMPROVEMENTS 124. Public Improvements. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown on the Site Development Review. However, the approval of the Site Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 125. Public Improvement Conformance. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements and as approved by the City Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 126. Public Street Slopes. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be at minimum 0.5% slope. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 127. Curb Returns. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 128. Decorative Paving. Any decorative pavers/paving installed within City right-of-way shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative paving is installed at signalized intersections, pre- formed traffic signal loops shall be put under the decorative pavement. Decorative pavements shall not interfere with the placement of traffic control devices, including pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the responsibility of the developer or future property owner. PW Approval of Improvement Plans 129. Traffic Signing and Striping. Applicant/Developer shall install all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings as required by the City Engineer. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 130. Street Lighting. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed or relocated as determined by the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 26 131. Water and Sewer Facilities. Applicant/Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 132. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street opposite each hydrant, and shall be shown on the signing and striping plan. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 133. Street Name Signs. Applicant/Developer shall furnish and install City standard street name signs for the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 134. Utilities. Applicant/Developer shall construct gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, and communication improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 135. Utility Locations. All gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, and communications utilities, shall be placed underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements or public services easements and sized to meet utility company standards. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 136. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in landscaped areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench improvements. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 137. Bus Shelters. Applicant/Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the locations designated and approved by LAFTA and the City Engineer. The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and installing these improvements. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION 138. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City’s acceptance of the subdivision improvements. PW On-going as needed 139. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology or the Society of PW On-going as needed 27 Professional Archaeology has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 140. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by- case basis. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right of way are more restrictive. PW On-going as needed 141. Construction Noise Management Plan. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. PW Start of Construction activities; and On-going as needed 142. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction activities; and On-going as needed 143. Pest Control. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. PW On-going 144. Dust Control Measures. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction activities; On-going as needed 145. Building Pad Certification. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating or certifying that the building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. PW Issuance of Building Permits or Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS - NPDES 146. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading, Applicant/Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. PW Start of construction activities 147. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan PW SWPPP to be Prepared 28 (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. Prior to Approval of Improvement Plans; Implementation Prior to Start of Construction and On-going as needed DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 148. Complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD “Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities”, all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 149. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 150. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 151. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 152. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 153. The locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. DSRSD Issuance of any grading permit, site work permit or building permit 154. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be DSRSD Issuance of any grading 29 by a separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. permit, site work permit or building permit 155. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 156. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer’s estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 157. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 155 have been satisfied. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 158. The Applicant/Developer shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. DSRSD Ongoing 159. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 160. Above-ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The Applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and DSRSD to size and configure the fire system. The Applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention devices/double-detector check valve through strategic placement and landscaping. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance and ongoing 161. Development plans will not be approved until DSRSD Approval of Final 30 landscape plans are submitted for DSRSD review and approval. Landscape Plans 162. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone (Ord. 301), which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as described in the DSRSD Water System Master Plan, March 2016. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer, compliance with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or superseded, is required. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with Districts "Recycled Water Use Guidelines" and Dept. of Health Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design. DSRSD Approval of Final Landscape Plans 163. Trash enclosures to be connected to the sanitary sewer, must have a grease and sand trap and the areas must be covered to prevent the entry of rainwater. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance and ongoing PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk HOLMES Fire Safety 235 Montgomery, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone 415.693.1600 WRA Environmental 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone 415.454.8868 CHARLES M SALTER ASSOCIATES INC AV/Acoustic 130 Sutter Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone 415.397.0442 HLB Lighting 300 Brannan Street, Suite 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone 415.348.8273 TEECOM Tele/Data/Sec 1333 Broadway, Suite 601 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone 510.337.2800 ARUP Structural / MEP Engineers 560 Mission Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone 415.957.9445 BIONIC Landscape Architect 833 Market Street, Suite 601 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone 415.206.0648 BKF Civil Engineers 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite, 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 Telephone 650.482.6300 Facsimile 650.482.6399 Architect 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco CA 94105 Telephone 415.433.3700 Facsimile 415.836.4599ZEISS January 02, 2018 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Innovation Center California Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA LT1.04 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION - SOUTH ●●●● LT1.03 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION - NORTH ●●●● LT1.02 SITE LIGHTING PLAN - SOUTH ●●●● LT1.01 SITE LIGHTING PLAN - NORTH ●●●● LIGHTING A4.85 EV CHARGING PANEL ENCLOSURE ●● A4.84 N2 AND EMERGENCY GENERATOR ELEVATION AND SECTION ●● A4.83 N2 AND EMERGENCY GENERATOR PLAN ●● A4.82 TRASH ROOM AND COMPACTOR ELEVATIONS AND SECTION ●● A4.81 TRASH ROOM AND COMPACTOR PLAN ●● A2.03 COLORED BUILDING ELEVATIONS ●●●● A2.02 MAIN BUILDING ELEVATIONS ●●●● A1.14 ROOF PLAN ●●●● A1.13 L3 FLOOR PLAN ●●●● A1.12 L2 FLOOR PLAN ●●●● A1.11 L1 FLOOR PLAN ●●●● ARCHITECTURE L7.04 DETAILS ● L7.03 DETAILS ● L7.02 DETAILS ● L7.01 DETAILS ●●●● L6.04 AXON VIEWS ●●● L6.02 SECTIONS ● L6.01 SECTIONS ●●●● L4.01 PLANTING PLAN ●●●●● L3.01 MATERIALS PLAN ●●●●● L1.02 FINISH GRADING-SURFACE DRAINAGE PLAN ●●●●● L0.02 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE KEY PLAN ●●●●● LANDSCAPE C7.00 PHASING PLAN ●●●● C6.00 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ●●●● C5.00 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ●●●● C4.00 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN ●●●● C3.00 PRELIMINARY HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN ●●●● C2.00 EXISTING UTILITIES ●●●● C1.00 EXISTING BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ●●●● CIVIL A1.00 SITE PLAN ●●●● A0.00 COVER SHEET ●●●●● GENERAL SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME 09 . 1 5 . 1 7 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N S U B M I T T A L 09 . 2 9 . 1 7 D P D E F E R R E D S U B M I T T A L 10 . 1 3 . 1 7 1 0 0 % S C H E M A T I C D E S I G N 11 . 0 3 . 1 7 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N R E S U B M I T T A L 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 01. 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L DUBLIN BLVD. SYBASE DR. CENTRAL PKWY. ARNOLD RD. BB FP FP FP V V V V V VV VV V V V V V V V V V V V C C CA CA CA CA CA CA C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV EV S SS CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CCAEV CA EV CA EV CA EV CA EV CA EV CA EV CA EV CA EV CA EV CA EV PARCEL B R.I.E.E. PARCEL B R.I.E.E. PARCEL B R.I.E.E. PARCEL C P.I.E.E. PARCEL C P.I.E.E. PARCEL D P.S.D.E. PARCEL D P.S.D.E. PARCEL D P.S.D.E. PARCEL D P.S.D.E. PARCEL D P.S.D.E. 10' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 10' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 7 10' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 10' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 20' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 7 20' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 7 20' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 7 7 10' P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 7 P.S.E 236 PM 7-136 P.S.E 236 PM 7-13 6 10' P.S.E 252 PM 90-95 8 10' P.S.E 252 PM 90-95 8 T.S.E 252 PM90-958 R.I.E.E. 252 PM 90-959 R.I.E.E. 252 PM 90-959 T.S.E 252 PM 90-95 8 E.V.A.E. 252 PM 90-958 9 P.S.D.E. 252 PM 90-95 9 P.S.D.E. 252 PM 90-95 30' E.V.A.E 236 PM 7-13 8 30' E.V.A.E 236 PM 7-13 8 30' E.V.A.E 236 PM 7-13 8 26' E.V.A.E 236 PM 7-13 8 15' W.L.E. 252 PM 90-958 15' W.L.E. 252 PM 90-958 15' W.L.E. 252 PM 90-958 15' W.L.E. 252 PM 90-95 8 UP UP UP SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT SITE AREA (GROSS): 11.36 ACRES (APPROX) 494841.6 SF (APPROX) PROPOSED BUILDING USE:RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO:208,650 SF/ 494,841 SF = 42.17% PROPOSED HEIGHT:62’-0” (TO THE TOP OF SCREEN, EXCLUDING ROOF TOP EQUIPEMENT OR ELEVATOR OVERRUN) SEE DWG. A2.01 PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPING:25% PARKING SPACE SIZE: FULL SIZE PARKING SPACES: 8'-6"X18'-0" (VARIENCE REVIEW REQUESTED) COMPACT PARKING SPACES: 8'-6"X15'-0" (VARIENCE REVIEW REQUESTED) ACCESSIBLE SPACES: 9'-0"X20'-0" ACCESSIBLE VAN SPACES: 12'-0"X20'-0" PARKING SPACE COUNT: PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT:614 SPACES SUMMARY 595TOTAL STANDARD SPACES 52TOTAL COMPACT SPACES (35%MAX -8% PROVIDED) ((C)) 14TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES (2% OF TOTAL) 3TOTAL SHUTTLE SPACES 664TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED DETAILED SUMMARY 20VISITOR SPACES ((V)) 3SHUTTLE SPACES ((S)) 54TOTAL CLEAN AIR VEHICLE SPACES (8% MIN.) ((CA)) 20 COMPACT EV 7COMPACT CA 20STANDARD EV 7STANDARD CA 40TOTAL EV SPACES (6% OF TOTAL) ((EV)) 20 COMPACT EV 20 STANDARD EV 14 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE SPACES (2% OF TOTAL) 11STANDARD ACCESSIBLE 3VAN ACCESSIBLE (1:6 OF STANDARD ADA) BIKE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: LONG TERM: 36 SHORT TERM: 40 BUILDING AREA LEVEL 01 73,059 GSF LEVEL 02 70,356 GSF LEVEL 03 65,235 GSF TOTAL BUILDING AREA:208,650 GSF ESTIMATED TOTAL HEADCOUNT:700 PROJECT INFORMATION LEGEND P.S.E. PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT T.S.E. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT R.I.E.E. RECIPROCAL INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT P.S.D.E. PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT E.V.A.E. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT F.A.PUMP FIRE ACCESS PUMP -DUBLIN PUMPER F.A. FIRE ACCESS DUBLIN AERIAL LADDER V VEHICULAR ACCESS P PEDESTRIAN ENTRY BUILDING ENTRANCE GENERAL NOTES 1. PROPERTY LINES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENT DIMENSIONS -SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS 2. LANDSCAPE AREAS -SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS 3. UTILITY CONNECTIONS ON SITE -SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS 4. SITE LIGHTING FIXTURES -SEE LIGHTING DRAWINGS 5. DIMENSIONS AND TURNING RADII -SEE CIVIL DRAWING C3.06. 6. PUBLIC ART LOCATION -SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWING L0.02 7. STRIPING DETAILS REFER TO EXHIBIT F 8. ALL SIGNAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED IN MASTER SIGN PROGRAM SEPARATELY. NOTE: THE FOLLOWING AREAS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE GROSS FLOOR AREA CALCULATION: 1. INTERIOR VOIDS (INCL. ATRIUM OPENINGS, MECHANICAL SHAFTS) 2. L3 OUTDOOR DECK AREAS (WITH OVERHANG) 3. L3 INTERNAL OUTDOOR COURTYARD (SURROUNDED BY WALLS, OPEN TO AIR WITH SUNSHADE BAFFLES OVERHEAD) 4. ALL THE ENCLOSURES DETACHED FROM THE MAIN BUILDING (INCL. TRASH, NITROGEN, EMERGENCY GENERATOR ENCLOSURES, ETC.) 5. ANY OVERHANG AREA SHEET NOTES 1. REFER TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, APPLICATION # TBD P.S.E. P.S.E. P. S . E . P. S . E . EV CHARGING PANEL ENCLOSURE BIORETENTION BR1 SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS CONDENSATE BASIN -WB1 SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS EXTERIOR SEATING SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS WATER SHED SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS WETLAND W6 BIORETENTION BR3 SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT BUILDING SETBACK ALONG DUBLIN PROPERTY LINE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS LANE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS LANE LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING ACCESSIBLE PATH SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS WATERSHEDSHORT TERM BICYLE PARKING EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE ROOF PLAN REFER TO DWG A1.04 WETLAND W6 SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS PROPERTY LINE SEE SHEET NOTE 1 SEE SHEET NOTE 1 SEE SHEET NOTE 1 PAVING PATTERN SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS PAVING PATTERN SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS SHUTTLE STOP EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH ADJACENT SITE LOADING/ RECEIVING AREA CENTRAL PKWY. AR N O L D RO A D DUBLIN BLVD. PA R K PL A C E PRIMARY VEHICULAR ENTRANCE FIRE ENGINE/ TRUCK FIRE ENGINE/ TRUCK FIRE ENGINE/ TRUCK FIRE ENGINE/ TRUCK FIRE ENGINE/ TRUCK FIRE ENGINE/ TRUCK V V P P P V OPEN TO BELOW 26' - 0" 50' - 0" 12 A4.85 SKYLIGHT LOUVERED SCREEN LOUVERED SCREEN EASEMENT 09 A4.81 17 A4.83 V V REFER TO SHEET NOTE 1 P PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE PARCEL TWO 252 PM 90-95 APN: 986-0014-011 PARCEL ONE 252 PM 90-95 (PARCEL A PER PTR 58206697-582-LE) 18' - 0"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"36' - 4"25' - 0"33' - 4"25' - 0"33' - 4"25' - 0"18' - 0" 25' - 0" 2 6 ' - 0 " 25' - 0" EMERGENCY GENERATOR ENCLOSURE NITROGEN ENCLOSURE & TRASH ENCLOSURE © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER: 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 5 1 : 2 5 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ G R A P H I T E I I - A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 - 1 _ c o r e y _ f o r s t . r v t 01.2409.000 Innovation Center California ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California DateDescription STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway, Ste 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street, Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 LIGHTING 300 Brannan Street, Ste 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 FOOD SERVICE 156 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.922.5900 G01.02.17DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTAL C1.00 EXISTING BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 1" = 40' © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER: 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 5 1 : 2 5 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ G R A P H I T E I I - A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 - 1 _ c o r e y _ f o r s t . r v t 01.2409.000 Innovation Center California ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California DateDescription STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway, Ste 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street, Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 LIGHTING 300 Brannan Street, Ste 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 FOOD SERVICE 156 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.922.5900 G01.02.17DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTAL C2.00 EXISTING UTILITIES 1" = 40' C3.00 PRELIMINARY HORIZONTAL © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER: 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 5 1 : 2 5 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ G R A P H I T E I I - A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 - 1 _ c o r e y _ f o r s t . r v t 01.2409.000 Innovation Center California ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California DateDescription STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway, Ste 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street, Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 LIGHTING 300 Brannan Street, Ste 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 FOOD SERVICE 156 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.922.5900 G01.02.17DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTAL CONTROL PLAN 1" = 40' © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER: 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 5 1 : 2 5 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ G R A P H I T E I I - A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 - 1 _ c o r e y _ f o r s t . r v t 01.2409.000 Innovation Center California ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California DateDescription STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway, Ste 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street, Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 LIGHTING 300 Brannan Street, Ste 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 FOOD SERVICE 156 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.922.5900 G01.02.17DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTAL C4.00 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN 1" = 40' © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER: 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 5 1 : 2 5 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ G R A P H I T E I I - A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 - 1 _ c o r e y _ f o r s t . r v t 01.2409.000 Innovation Center California ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California DateDescription STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway, Ste 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street, Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 LIGHTING 300 Brannan Street, Ste 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 FOOD SERVICE 156 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.922.5900 G01.02.17DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTAL C5.00 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 1" = 40' © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER: 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 5 1 : 2 5 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ G R A P H I T E I I - A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 - 1 _ c o r e y _ f o r s t . r v t 01.2409.000 Innovation Center California ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California DateDescription STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway, Ste 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street, Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 LIGHTING 300 Brannan Street, Ste 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 FOOD SERVICE 156 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.922.5900 G01.02.17DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTAL C6.00 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1" = 40' Drainage Management Area ID Total Drainage Area Size (ft2) Impervious Surface Area Size (ft2) Pervious Surface Area (ft2) 4% of Effective Impervious Area (ft2) Treatment Area Provided (ft2) Ponding Depth Provided (in) Actual Ponding Depth (in) Type of Treatment Measure and Identification No. Treatment Measure lined or unlined Treatment Area Hydraulic Sizing Method DMA-1 381,313328,093 53,220 13,12412,67612 0.81Bioretention (BMP-1)Unlined Flow and Volume Based DMA-2 20,15418,5361,6187411,61860 Bioretention (BMP-2)Unlined Flow and Volume Based DMA-3 Self-Retaining/ Self- Treating to Wetland 67,9046,214 61,608----Wetland W06 -- DMA-4 Self Retaining/ Self- Treating Uncaptured 19,6860 19,686------- DMA-5 Self Retaining/ Self- Treating Uncaptured 4,3681,6782,690------- Total 493,425354,521138,82213,86514,294----- © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER: 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 5 1 : 2 5 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ G R A P H I T E I I - A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 - 1 _ c o r e y _ f o r s t . r v t 01.2409.000 Innovation Center California ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California DateDescription STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway, Ste 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street, Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 LIGHTING 300 Brannan Street, Ste 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 FOOD SERVICE 156 2nd Street San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.922.5900 G01.02.17DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTAL C7.00 PHASING PLAN 1" = 40' SH R U B - T Y P E A SH R U B - T Y P E B L7 . 0 3 A WA T E R S H E D BI O R E T E N T I O N CO N D E N S A T E B A S I N WE T L A N D ( W - 6 ) PA - # PA - # PA - # BR - # CB - # W - 6 L7 . 0 3 A L7 . 0 3 B L7 . 0 3 C L7 . 0 3 D L7 . 0 3 E L7 . 0 3 A ST A N D A R D S L O T D R A I N PARKINGBIORETENTIONARNOLD RDDUBLIN BLVD CENTRAL PKWY PARK PL AP-3 P.S.E. R. I . E . E . P. S . D . E . 15 ' P . S . D . E . 10' P.S.E . E. V . A . E . 26 ' T. S . E . 20' EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G AP N # : 9 8 6 - 0 0 1 4 - 0 1 0 - 0 0 10 ' P . S . E . 10' P.S.E.P.S.E.20'AP-1 AP-2 AP - 4 AP-5AP-6 AP-7 W6INNOVATION CENTER ARNOLD RDD-1D-2D-3D-5D-6 D-4D-7D-8D-9D-10D-11D-12D-13 D-14 D-15 D-16 D-17 D-18 SDRSDR DIRGBGBGB LE G E N D KE Y N O T E S TH E L A N D S C A P E I S D E S I G N E D T O A C C O M P L I S H T H R E E P R I M A R Y G O A L S : 1. C R E A T E A P A R K - L I K E E N V I R O N M E N T T H A T I S A C C E S S I B L E T O T H E P U B L I C . TH E L A N D S C A P E D O E S S O I N A S E T T I N G T H A T I S A C C E S S I B L E T O T H E PU B L I C , A N D I T I N C L U D E S I N T E R P R E T I V E A N D E D U C A T I O N A L C O M P O N E N T S TO E N R I C H V I S I T O R S ' E X P E R I E N C E O N T H E S I T E . 2. E N H A N C E E X I S T I N G E C O L O G I E S A N D C R E A T E N E W E C O L O G I E S B Y U T I L I Z I N G AN D E X P O S I N G T H E S I T E ' S W A T E R R E S O U R C E S . 3. TR E A T A L L O F T H E S I T E ’ S S T O R M W A T E R I N A S E T O F B A S I N S T H R O U G H O U T TH E S I T E T H A T A R E L I N K E D T O T H E S I T E ' S W A T E R I N F R A S T R U C T U R E . DE S I G N T H E M E PR O P E R T Y L I N E EA S E M E N T PR E L I M I N A R Y L A N D S C A P E K E Y P L A N L0 . 0 2 0 40 ' MO V A B L E O U T D O O R F U R N I T U R E PO T E N T I A L P U B L I C A R T L O C A T I O N S (P U B L I C A R T P R O G R A M T O B E R E V I E W E D B Y C I T Y SE P A R A T E L Y , L O C A T I O N S T O B E A C R E E D U P O N W I T H C I T Y ) P. S . E . PU B L I C S E R V I C E E A S E M E N T T. S . E . TR A F F I C S I G N A L E A S E M E N T R. I . E . E RE C I P R O C A L I N G R E S S & E G R E S S E A S E M E N T P. S . D . E . P R I V A T E S T O R M D R A I N E A S E M E N T E. V . A . E . E M E R G E N C Y V E H I C L E A C C E S S E A S E M E N T AP - # AC C E S S P O I N T D- # DO O R PR O P O S E D T R E E TR E E B O X S I Z E / T R E E G R A T E TR E E P L A N T I N G A R E A 12 " O F F S E T F R O M B O X TR E E T R U N K 1 C O N C R E T E B O A R D W A L K 2 B I O R E T E N T I O N C E L L S 3 C O N D E N S A T E B A S I N 4 E M E R G E N C Y V E H I C L E A C C E S S A I S L E 5 B I K E P A R K I N G - L O N G - T E R M , S E C U R E ( 3 5 S P A C E S ) 6 P A T H W A Y 7 P A R K I N G L O T G R A P H I C 8 S H U T T L E S T O P 9 B I K E P A R K I N G - S H O R T - T E R M ( 2 0 S P A C E S , W I T H I N 2 0 0 ' O F F R O N T D O O R ) 1 0 T A C T I L E W A R N I N G S T R I P ( 3 ' W I D E ) 1 1 E . V . S O L A R C H A R G I N G P A N E L S / T R A N S F O R M E R W R A P P E D W I T H S C R E E N 12 I R R I G A T I O N G R I D - P E R M A N D T E M P I R R I G A T I O N , S S P O L E S , H E I G H T V A R ( 3 - 9 ' ) NO T E : S E E S C H E D U L E S H E E T L 3 . 0 1 F O R M A T E R I A L S SC H E D U L E 23 % O F T O T A L S I T E A L L O C A T E D A S F O L L O W S : 20 % - L O W W A T E R U S E G R O U N D C O V E R ; S H R U B S , A N D G R A S S E S 3% - P L A N T E D B I O R E T E N T I O N PE R C E N T L A N D S C A P I N G © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L G SE E L . 4 0 1 F O R S C H E D U L E EX I S T I N G T R E E T O R E M A I N 5 2 34 8 11 SH R U B 4 9 6 2 10 10 7 7112CURB RAMPDETAILCIP REINFORCEDNON-VEHICULAR CONCRETE AL7.01 CL7.02 C L7 . 0 1 ST A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D ST O N E S U R F A C I N G D L7 . 0 1 ST D C I P C O N C R E T E WA L L DL7.02 TACTILE WARNINGSURFACING EL6.02 SHUTTLE STOPELEVATION CI P R E I N F O R C E D VE H I C U L A R C O N C R E T E B L7 . 0 1 CI P R E I N F O R C E D VE H I C U L A R C O N C R E T E B L7 . 0 1 TREE GRATEHL7.02 E L7 . 0 1 SLOT DRAINBL7.02BIKE RACKSFL7.02 GL7.02 D L7 . 0 1 ST A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D ST O N E S U R F A C I N G E L7 . 0 1 CONDENSATE BASINAGGREGATE PROFILE FL7.01 CIP CONCRETEWALL (TYP.)CL7.01 CO N C R E T E C U R B (L O N G - T E R M B I K E P A R K I N G ) A L7 . 0 2 AP-3BIORETENTIONINNOVATION C E N T E R ARNOLD RD AP-1 AP-2 AP - 4 AP - 5 AP - 6 AP-7 W6 D-1 D- 2 D- 3 D- 5 D- 6 D- 4 D- 7 D- 8 D- 9 D- 1 0 D- 1 1 D- 1 2 D- 1 3 D- 1 4 D-15 D-16 D-17 D-18 SDRSDR (e) FG 49.5 FG 4 6 . 7 ( E ) FFE 51.0 FF E 5 1 . 0 FFE 51.0FS 50.63 FS 49.812%FS 50.00FS 49.421.9%2% 2% FS 5 0 . 5 TC 5 1 . 5 TC 4 9 . 7 TC 5 0 . 2 TC 5 0 . 1 FS 4 8 . 2 5 FS 5 0 . 4 8 FS 5 0 . 0 FS 5 0 . 2 2 TC 5 0 . 5 FS 50.87 TC 49.9 FS 5 0 . 0 TC 5 1 . 5 FS 5 0 . 8 7 (e ) F G 4 9 . 5 FS 5 0 . 8 FS 4 9 . 6 FS 5 0 . 2 TC 50.51.9% FS 4 8 . 7 5 FFE 51.0 FFE 351.00 1.9% FS 5 0 . 0 FS 5 0 . 0 (e ) F G 4 9 . 5 TW 5 1 . 5 TW 52.1 0 FS 50.42 1.5 %TW 52.0494847 48 50 494847 50 50 504934948444345444346434450 49 47 4545 46 34847FG43.0454443 46 51 51 49 48 51 53 51 52 52 51 52 53 50 50 5046 46 47 SDR 50.54 FS 49.88FS 50.00DIR 49.50 DIR FS 49.60 TC 50.50TC 49.50 TC 50.00TC 49.00TC 48.50TC 48.00TC 47.50TC 47.00 FS 50.86 1.9%50 FS 50.6FS 51.60 FS 51.50FS 50.24TW 52.11%(e) FG 49.5 (e) FG 49.5 (e ) F G 4 9 . 5 (e ) F G 3 4 9 . 5 (e ) F G 4 9 . 5 (e ) F G 4 9 . 5 (e ) F G 4 9 . 5 (e ) F G 4 9 . 5 (e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e ) X X X . X X FS X X X . X X FG X X X . X X TW X X X . X X TC X X X . X X SD I X X X . X X FF E X X X . X X © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L G PR O P E R T Y L I N E EA S E M E N T ( I F A N Y ) RA M P AC C E S S P O I N T 10' P.S.E. 15 ' P . S . D . E . (B W ) B O T T O M O F W A L L E L E V A T I O N BW X X X . X X SC H E D U L E 26 ' E . V . A . E . DO O R AP - # D- # RE I N F O R C E D NO N - V E H I C U L A R C O N C R E T E ST A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D ST O N E S U R F A C I N G (A D A A C C E S S I B L E ) CO N D E N S A T E B A S I N (P L A N T E D / R O C K B O T T O M ) TA C T I L E W A R N I N G SU R F A C E SL O T D R A I N ( S D R ) MO V E A B L E O U T D O O R FU R N I T U R E BI K E R A C K S (S H O R T - T E R M ) BI K E L O C K E R S (S E C U R E , L O N G - T E R M ) ME T A L G R A T E D R A I N TR E E W E L L G R A T E S SH U T T L E S T O P SC R E E N / M E T A L CL A D D I N G RE I N F O R C E D V E H I C U L A R CO N C R E T E ( F I R E L A N E S ) PA R K I N G L O T G R A P H I C L7 . 0 1 A L7 . 0 1 B L7 . 0 1 C L7 . 0 1 D L7 . 0 1 F L7 . 0 3 C L7 . 0 2 F L7 . 0 2 G L7 . 0 2 H L7 . 0 2 D L7 . 0 2 B L6 . 0 2 E L6 . 0 1 B L7 . 0 2 A SDRSDR PARKINGBIORETENTIONARNOLD RDDUBLIN BLVD CENTRAL PKWY PARK PL P.S.E. R. I . E . E . P. S . D . E . 15 ' P . S . D . E . 10' P.S.E . E. V . A . E . 26 ' T. S . E . 20' EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G AP N # : 9 8 6 - 0 0 1 4 - 0 1 0 - 0 0 10 ' P . S . E . 10' P.S.E.P.S.E.20'W6INNOVATION CENTER ARNOLD RDD-1D-2D-3D-5D-6 D-4D-7D-8D-9D-10D-11D-12D-13 D-14 D-15 D-16 D-17 D-18 © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L GL3 . 0 1 MA T E R I A L S P L A N 0 40 ' SC H E D U L E LE G E N D PR O P E R T Y L I N E EA S E M E N T A A CURB RAMPDETAILCIP REINFORCEDNON-VEHICULAR CONCRETE AL7.01 CL7.02 C L7 . 0 1 ST A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D ST O N E S U R F A C I N G D L7 . 0 1 ST D C I P C O N C R E T E WA L L DL7.02 TACTILE WARNINGSURFACING EL6.02 SHUTTLE STOPELEVATION CI P R E I N F O R C E D VE H I C U L A R C O N C R E T E B L7 . 0 1 CI P R E I N F O R C E D VE H I C U L A R C O N C R E T E B L7 . 0 1 C C BABTREE GRATEHL7.02 E L7 . 0 1 BC SLOT DRAINBL7.02BIKE RACKSFL7.02 GL7.02 D L7 . 0 1 ST A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D ST O N E S U R F A C I N G E L7 . 0 1 CONDENSATE BASINAGGREGATE PROFILE FL7.01 CIP CONCRETEWALL (TYP.)CL7.01 CO N C R E T E C U R B (L O N G - T E R M B I K E P A R K I N G ) A L7 . 0 2 SDRSDR PARKINGBIORETENTIONARNOLD RDDUBLIN BLVD CENTRAL PKWY PARK PL P.S.E. R. I . E . E . P. S . D . E . 15 ' P . S . D . E . 10' P.S.E. E. V . A . E . 26 ' T. S . E . 20' EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G AP N # : 9 8 6 - 0 0 1 4 - 0 1 0 - 0 0 10 ' P . S . E . 10' P.S.E.P.S.E.20'W6INNOVATION CENTER ARNOLD RD Fo FoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFo Fo Fo Fo Fo GpPaPaPaPa Up F o Gp Gp Gp Fo Pa Gp GpGp Fo PaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPaPa Fo F o F oFoF oFo FoFoF oFo FoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoGpGpGpGpGpGpGpGpGpMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsMsCo FoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoFoCoCoCoGpQaQaQaAgAgCoCoCoAgCoUpUpUp Bi o r e t e n t i o n Sh r u b t y p e A Sh r u b t y p e B W6 w a t e r s h e d W6 s e a s o n a l w e t l a n d Co n d e n s a t e B a s i n sh r u b fl o w e r i n g p e r e n n i a l gr a s s gr o u n d c o v e r an n u a l w i l d f l o w e r sc r e e n i n g g r a s s Fo AgQaMs Gp PaUp Co SC H E D U L E © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L GL4 . 0 1 PL A N T I N G & T R E E P L A N 0 40 ' TR E E S PL A N T T Y P E S RE F E R E N C E I M A G E S S H O W T R E E S A T M A T U R I T Y . RE F E R E N C E I M A G E S P R O V I D E D A S E X A M P L E S F O R PL A N T I N G A R E A S LE G E N D PR O P O S E D T R E E TR E E B O X S I Z E TR E E P L A N T I N G A R E A 12 " O F F S E T F R O M B O X EX I S T I N G T R E E T O R E M A I N TR E E T R U N K EX A M P L E P L A N T S RE F E R E N C E I M A G E S NO T E : W E T L A N D S P E C I E S A N D DE T A I L S T O B E D E T E R M I N E D I N ON - S I T E P E R M I T PLANTING ZONE PATH FS 50.79 FS 50.79 FG 49.50 FG 49.50 FS 50.00 PLANTING ZONE WETLAND PLANTING ZONE PATH PLANTING ZONE ROAD PR O P E R T Y L I N E STD CIP NON-VEHICULAR CONCRETE PROFILEL7.01 A TC 49.80 ENTRY AREAROADSIDEWALK ENTRY SEATING AREA TW 52.10 TW 52.10 BIORETENTION TW 52.10 CONDENSATE BASIN FG 54.00 PLANTING ZONE PR O P E R T Y L I N E STD CIP CONCRETE WALLL7.01 C IRRIGATION POLESTD CIP CONCRETE WALLL7.01 C CONDENSATE BASIN AGGREGATE PROFILEL7.01 FSTD CIP CONCRETE WALL L7.01 C TW 52.10 TW 52.10 TW 52.10 PR O P E R T Y L I N E TC 49.90 FG 54.00 ENTRY AREAROADSIDEWALK PLANTING ZONE BIORETENTION CONDENSATE BASIN STD CIP CONCRETE WALLL7.01 CSTD CIP CONCRETE WALLL7.01 C CONDENSATE BASIN AGGREGATE PROFILEL7.01 FSTD CIP CONCRETE WALL L7.01 C FS 50.79 FS 50.79 FS 50.00 PR O P E R T Y L I N E FG 54.00 FG 49.50 FG 49.50 PLANTING ZONE METAL GRATE FS 50.79 PLANTING ZONE WETLAND PLANTING ZONE PATH PLANTING ZONE ROAD IRRIGATION POLE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION POLE IRRIGATION POLE © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street Suite 601 San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway Suite 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 PERMIT NUMBER: LIGHTING 300 Brannan street Suite 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 DateDescription ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery Street, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 4 0 : 2 8 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 _ C o r e y _ F o r s t @ g e n s l e r . c o m . r v t 01.2409.000 ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California Innovation Center California 01.02.18DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTALG L6.01 SECTIONS AS SHOWN BSCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION B-B' SECTION MA T C H L I N E ASCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION A-A' SECTION SECTION KEY MAP NOTE: ALL SPOT GRADES ARE PRECEDED BY 300. A' A B B' MA T C H L I N E MA T C H L I N E MA T C H L I N E C C' D D' H H' E E' F F' GG' FFE 51.00 ENTRY PLAZABUILDING CONDENSATE BASIN BIORETENTION WALK PARKING TW 52.10 TW 52.10 TW 52.10 TW 52.10 FS 50.18 STD CIP CONCRETE WALL L7.01 C PARKING LIGHT WHEEL STOP STD CIP CONCRETE WALLL7.01 C CONDENSATE BASIN AGGREGATE PROFILEL7.01 F STD CIP CONCRETE WALL L7.01 C STD CIP CONCRETE WALL L7.01 C ENTRY PLAZABUILDING PLANTING ZONE WALK PARKING PARKING LIGHT WHEEL STOP FFE 51.00 FS 50.18FS 50.42 TW 52.10 TW 52.10 FG 54.00FG 54.00 STD CIP CONCRETE WALL L7.01 CIRRIGATION POLESTD CIP CONCRETE WALLL7.01 C BUILDING FFE 51.00 FS 49.90TC 49.50 SIDEWALK ZONEROAD PLANTING WALK PR O P E R T Y L I N E BOLLARD SIDEWALK PLANTING ZONE BIORETENTION PR O P E R T Y L I N E TREE BOSQUE BUILDINGSEATING ZONE FFE 51.00 STD BOLLARD FOUNDATIONL7.04 E FG 43.00 FG 43.00 FG 46.00 BUILDING FFE 51.00 FS 50.86 TC 47.50 SIDEWALK ZONEROAD PLANTING WALK PR O P E R T Y L I N E BOLLARD 220" 10 1 " MMCITE AE400-SS TRANSIT SHELTER © Gensler Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street Suite 601 San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway Suite 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 PERMIT NUMBER: LIGHTING 300 Brannan street Suite 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 DateDescription ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery Street, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 4 0 : 2 8 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 _ C o r e y _ F o r s t @ g e n s l e r . c o m . r v t 01.2409.000 ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California Innovation Center California 01.02.18DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTALG L6.02 SECTIONS AS SHOWN C C' D D' H H' E E' F F' SECTION KEY MAP NOTE: ALL SPOT GRADES ARE PRECEDED BY 300. ASCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION C-C' SECTION BSCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION D-D' SECTION CSCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION E-E' SECTION FSCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION H-H' SECTION DSCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION F-F' SECTIONESCALE: 3/16" = 1' - 0" SECTION G-G' SECTION GG' A' A B B' SDR SDR B C A L6.04 AXON VIEWS NS VIEW C: ENTRY FROM ARNOLD RD VIEW B: WETLAND PATH VIEW A: CONCRETE BOARDWALK Key Plan STABILIZED CRUSHED STONE SURFACING D L7.01 A L6.01 CONCRETE BOARDWALK CONDENSATE BASIN A L6.02 © Gensler Project Name Description Scale Seal / Signature 2017 Tel 415.433.3700 Fax 415.836.4599 2 Harrison Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States STRUCTURAL / MEP 560 Mission Street Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 United States Tel 415.957.9445 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 833 Market Street Suite 601 San Francisco, CA 94103 United States Tel 415.206.0648 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TELE/DATA/SEC 1333 Broadway Suite 601 Oakland, CA 94612 United States Tel 510.337.2800 AV/ACOUSTIC 130 Sutter Street Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.397.0442 CIVIL ENGINEER 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94065 United States Tel 650.482.6300 PERMIT NUMBER: LIGHTING 300 Brannan street Suite 212 San Francisco, CA 94107 United States Tel 415.348.8273 DateDescription ENVIRONMENTAL 2169-G East Francisco Blvd San Rafael CA. 94901 United States Tel 415.454.8868 FIRE SAFETY 235 Montgomery Street, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94104 United States Tel 415.693.1600 Project Number 5/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 4 0 : 2 8 P M \\ g e n s l e r . a d \ p r o j e c t s \ R e v i t U s e r M o d e l s \ 2 4 7 0 3 \ A R C H - 0 1 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 - C E N T R A L - V 2 0 1 7 _ C o r e y _ F o r s t @ g e n s l e r . c o m . r v t 01.2409.000 ZEISS Site 15A, DUBLIN Dublin, CA Innovation Center California Innovation Center California 01.02.18DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL SUBMITTALG SC A L E : 1 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D V E H I C U L A R - L O A D C O N C R E T E P R O F I L E SE C T I O N 8" 88 - 9 2 % C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E (M C M I N + 3 % A B O V E OP T I M U M ) 12" #4 R E B A R , 1 2 " O . C EA C H W A Y 95 % C O M P A C T E D C L A S S 2 AG G R E G A T E B A S E (M C A B O V E O P T I M U M ) UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E 32" 12" TOP 1/3 OF SLAB CI P C O N C R E T E FS SC A L E : 1 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D S T A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D S T O N E - P R O F I L E SE C T I O N 26" 12" 5"5"2"2" 10"4" FG 95 % C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E (M I N + 3 % A B O V E OP T I M U M M C ) UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E 95 % C O M P A C T E D C L A S S II A G G R E G A T E ( 2 L I F T S ) 1/ 4 " M I N U S C R U S H E D ST O N E + S T A B I L I Z E R (2 L I F T S ) 6" 88 - 9 2 % C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E (M I N + 3 % A B O V E OP T I M U M M C ) 12" #4 R E B A R , 1 2 " O . C EA C H W A Y 95 % C O M P A C T E D C L A S S 2 AG G R E G A T E B A S E . (A B O V E O P T I M U M M C ) SC A L E : 1 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D N O N - V E H I C U L A R - L O A D C O N C R E T E P R O F I L E SE C T I O N UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E 30" 12" TOP 1/3 OF SLAB CI P C O N C R E T E FS SC A L E : 1 - 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " CO N D E N S A T E B A S I N A G G R E G A T E P R O F I L E SE C T I O N 6" R O C K / C O B B L E UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E 18" 9"3" FG DR A I N R O C K CA L T R A N S C L A S S 2 PE R M E A B L E A B 6" 6" P E R F P I P E , SL O P E T O D R A I N EP I 2 0 M I L IM P E R M E A B L E L I N E R WA T E R L E V E L SC A L E : 1 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D S T A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D S T O N E - M E T A L E D G E C O N D I T I O N SE C T I O N 20" FG 95 % C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E ST D S T A B I L I Z E D C R U S H E D ST O N E L7 . 0 2 A 1/ 4 " M E T A L E D G I N G AD J A C E N T P L A N T I N G 10 " 6"10"4" 2% S L O P E FS 1/2" 95 % C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E ST D C I P R E I N F O R C E D CO N C R E T E - NO N - V E H I C U L A R L O A D CI P R E I N F O R C E D CO N C R E T E W A L L PER GRADING PLANS SC A L E : 3 / 4 " = 1 ' ST A N D A R D C I P C O N C R E T E W A L L SE C T I O N FG 18" MIN R 1 / 4 " T Y P . RE I N F O R C E D CO N C R E T E F O O T I N G FS 1% VA R I E S , 8 - 2 4 " 18 " ST A N D A R D C O N C R E T E IS O L A T I O N J O I N T AD J A C E N T P L A N T I N G 37" 6"12" L7 . 0 1 A © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L GL7 . 0 1 DE T A I L S VA R I E S A B D E F C SC A L E : 1 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D S L O T D R A I N - C O N C R E T E SE C T I O N 95 % C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E 4" 4" SL O P E T O D R A I N HE E L - R E S I S T A N T S L O T DR A I N A S S E M B L Y · IN S T A L L P E R M F G . IN S T R U C T I O N S ST D C O N C R E T E P A V I N G 4"4" VARIES 4- # 4 B A R , C O N T I N U O U S FS 12 " OV E R L A P CO M P A C T I O N FL U S H #4 V - B A R 1 2 " O . C . L7 . 0 1 A ON E F L A G , C O N C R E T E P A V I N G EX P A N S I O N J O I N T L7 . 0 1 E VARIES 6" SC A L E : 3 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D C O N C R E T E C U R B SE C T I O N CO N C R E T E C U R B DO W E L S Y S T E M AD J A C E N T M A T E R I A L 6" 6" SC A L E : 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D C U R B R A M P PL A N MAX 1.5% 8. 3 3 % M A X SE C T I O N ST A N D A R D C O N C R E T E GR O O V E D B O R D E R FS L7 . 0 2 D SE E L A Y O U T P L A N 12 " SI D E W A L K SI D E W A L K MAX 1.5% VARIES, SEE LAYOUT PLAN MA X 5 % FS ST A N D A R D C O N C R E T E CU R B L7 . 0 2 F SC A L E : 1 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D B I K E R A C K SE C T I O N S & P L A N 6" 28 1 / 4 " NO N - S H R I N K A N C H O R CE M E N T , C O L O R T O MA T C H A D J A C E N T PL A N Ø3 " Ø3 " C O R E D R I L L E D H O L E S LA N D S C A P E F O R M S - BO L A B I K E R A C K - S S 32" FS 2% M A X SC A L E : 1 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D C I P T A C T I L E W A R N I N G S U R F A C E SE C T I O N FS FL U S H CI P R E I N F O R C E D CO N C R E T E - N O N VE H I C U L A R L7 . 0 1 A CO N C R E T E C U R B AS P H A L T CI P T A C T I L E W A R N I N G SU R F A C E ( A R M O R T I L E ) 2. 3 5 " 4X E N L A R G E M E N T 2.35" 0.90" 0.45"1.375"0.2" SC A L E : 3 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D C O N C R E T E G R O O V E D B O R D E R SE C T I O N 1/ 4 " 3/ 4 " 1/4" 12 " CI P C O N C R E T E PA V I N G L7 . 0 1 A RA M P GR O O V E D BO R D E R FS 72" (TYP)48" MIN39" (TYP)24"(MIN)36"(MIN)SCALE: 3/8" = 1' - 0"STANDARD BIKE RACK LAYOUTPLAN STD BIKE RACK-FWALL / OBSTRUCTION SCALE: 1/2" = 1' - 0"STANDARD TREE GRATESECTION A'A'NTE 18"O.C.LCTREE GRATESUB-FRAMEPERIMETER ANGLEFRAME, INSTALL PERMFG. INSTRUCTIONS 4"CLR CENTRAL LEADER TREE GRATESUB-FRAMESTANDARD CIPREINFORCED CONCRETE- NON-VEHICULAR LOAD EMBEDMENT ANCHOR SUB-FRAME BOLTATTACHMENTSPLAN PERIMETER FRAMEFGL7.01 AFSROOT CONTROL BARRIER ENLARGEMENT 1/16" MAX(±1/16" TOLERANCE)4" CLRFG FS FLUSH PER PLANS © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L GL7 . 0 2 DE T A I L S VA R I E S A B C D E F G H SC A L E : 1 - 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " SO I L P R O F I L E - B ( B I O R E T E N T I O N ) SE C T I O N BI O R E T E N T I O N M E D I U M UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E 30" 9"3" FG DR A I N R O C K CA L T R A N S C L A S S 2 PE R M E A B L E A B 18" 6" P E R F P I P E , SL O P E T O D R A I N EP I 2 0 M I L IM P E R M E A B L E L I N E R SC A L E : 1 - 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " SO I L P R O F I L E - C ( W A T E R B A S I N - P L A N T E D ) SE C T I O N EM E R G E N T VE G E T A T I O N M E D I U M UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E 18" 9"3" FG DR A I N R O C K CA L T R A N S C L A S S 2 PE R M E A B L E A B 6" 6" P E R F P I P E , SL O P E T O D R A I N EP I 2 0 M I L IM P E R M E A B L E L I N E R SC A L E : 1 - 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " SO I L P R O F I L E - A ( G R O U N D C O V E R P L A N T I N G ) SE C T I O N PL A N T I N G S O I L UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E MU L C H 15" 12"3" FG SC A L E : 1 - 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D P L U G P L A N T I N G SE C T I O N PL A N T I N G S O I L UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E MU L C H PL U G SE E P L A N T S P A C I N G S C H E D U L E 15" 12"3" FG MU L C H PL A N T I N G S O I L PE D E S T A L UN C O M P A C T E D SU B G R A D E CO N T A I N E R S T O C K LC SC A L E : 1 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D C O N T A I N E R P L A N T I N G SE C T I O N SI Z E 1 G A L 5 G A L 15 G A L ##1 #5 #1 5 DE P T H 7" 11 " 16 " LC 2"3" SEE CONTAINER SIZE SCHEDULE SE E P L A N T S P A C I N G SC H E D U L E CO N T A I N E R S I Z E S C H E D U L E FG 3" (M U L C H ) SC A L E : N T S CO N T A I N E R P L A N T & P L U G S P A C I N G PL A N D (T R I A N G U L A R SP A C I N G ) D D R (ROW SPACING) NO T E S : 1. E S T I M A T E P L A N T Q U A N T I T I E S O N T R I A N G U L A R SP A C I N G S C H E D U L E S H O W N B E L O W . 2. A L I G N R O W S T O B E H O R I Z O N T A L A C R O S S SL O P E S . D O N O T P I T C H . 3. P L A C E T H E C E N T E R O F A L L P L A N T S A W A Y F R O M ED G E S A N D W A L L S 1 / 2 D I A M E T E R O F T H E SP A C I N G P L U S 6 " , U N L E S S O T H E R W I S E IN D I C A T E D I N P L A N T I N G P L A N . AR E A , P E R P L A N T (S Q . F T . ) 0. 2 2 0. 3 9 0. 6 0 0. 8 7 1. 9 5 3. 4 6 7. 8 0 13 . 8 4 21 . 6 5 31 . 2 0 R = R O W SP A C I N G 5"7"9" 10 " 16 " 21 " 31 " 42 " 52 " 62 " D = P L A N T DI A M E T E R 6"8" 10 " 12 " 18 " 24 " 36 " 48 " 60 " 72 " PL A N T S P A C I N G S C H E D U L E PL A N T S P A C I N G S C H E D U L E © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L GL7 . 0 3 DE T A I L S VA R I E S A B C D FE SC A L E : 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D S T R E E T T R E E G U Y I N G SE C T I O N LC FS PL A N 3/ 4 " P O L Y P R O P Y L E N E DE E P R O O T A R B O R - T I E (W H I T E ) RO O T B A L L CE N T R A L L E A D E R DE E P R O O T S T E E L EY E - S C R E W A N C H O R NO T E TR E E G U Y I N G F O R 4 8 " B O X A N D L A R G E R SC A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D T E M P O R A R Y E X I S T I N G T R E E P R O T E C T I O N SE C T I O N 72" 24" (MIN) 2" D I A M E T E R M E T A L ST A K E , 6 ' M A X O . C . T Y P CH A I N L I N K F E N C I N G UN D I S T U R B E D S O I L 8- 1 / 2 " x 1 1 " W A R N I N G S I G N AT 2 0 ' I N T E R V A L S A L O N G FE N C E P E R A H J R E Q s . NO T E S : 1. P R O T E C T I V E F E N C I N G I N S T A L L E D P R I O R TO A R R I V A L O F M A T E R I A L S , V E H I C L E S O R EQ U I P M E N T 2. M O V I N G T R E E P R O T E C T I O N Z O N E F E N C I N G PR O H I B I T E D W I T H O U T A U T H O R I Z A T I O N FR O M P R O J E C T A R B O R I S T A N D C I T Y S T A F F 3. M O V E A B L E B A R R I E R S O F C H A I N L I N K FE N C I N G S E C U R E D T O C E M E N T B L O C K S MA Y B E S U B S T I T U T E D F O R F I X E D F E N C I N G WI T H A P P R O V A L O F P R O J E C T A R B O R I S T AN D C I T Y S T A F F . 72 " TR E E P R O T E C T I O N Z O N E D I A M E T E R : 12 " F O R E V E R Y 1 " T R U N K D B H , 6 ' M I N LC ME C H A N I C A L L Y F A S T E N ST R A P T O P O S T LC FG FS 6" M I N 1/3 TREE HEIGHT (MIN) P R E V A I L I N G W I N D PL A N RO O T B A L L CE N T R A L L E A D E R NO T E S 1. 2 S T A K E S F O R 2 4 " B O X A N D S M A L L E R 2. 3 S T A K E S F O R 3 6 " B O X E S ( 6 0 ° S P A C I N G ) 3. T R E E G U Y I N G F O R 4 8 " B O X A N D L A R G E R 3/ 4 " P O L Y P R O P Y L E N E DE E P R O O T A R B O R - T I E (W H I T E ) SC A L E : 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D T R E E S T A K I N G SE C T I O N / E L E V A T I O N / P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D T R E E P L A N T I N G - F I E L D C O N D I T I O N SECTION 4" MI N SE E T R E E E X C A V A T I O N S C H E D U L E LC FG UN C O M P A C T E D S U B G R A D E 3"MAX18"SEE TREE EXCAVATIONSCHEDULE12"MIN PL A N T I N G S O I L , T Y P E A PL A N T I N G S O I L , T Y P E B SC D F O R S D C O N N E C T I O N TR E E P L A N T I N G - S T O R M DR A I N A G E C O N N E C T I O N 1 1 SD RO O T B A L L TR E E P L A N T I N G H O L E S. C . D F O R C O N N E C T I O N T O ST O R M D R A I N S Y S T E M 36 " D E E P R O O T B U B B L E R (U P S L O P E O F R O O T B A L L ) A' 18 " D E E P R O O T B U B B L E R A' CE N T R A L L E A D E R FL E X I B L E P E R F P I P E SD 18 " D E E P R O O T B U B B L E R 36 " D E E P R O O T B U B B L E R 4" S C H 4 0 R I G I D P E R F P I P E IN S P E C T I O N R I S E R A T L P O F SU B D R A I N MU L C H SC A L E : 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " ST A N D A R D T R E E P L A N T I N G O N S L O P E - F I E L D C O N D I T I O N SECTION SE E T R E E E X C A V A T I O N S C H E D U L E UN C O M P A C T E D S U B G R A D E 36 " D E E P R O O T B U B B L E R SEE TREE EXCAVATIONSCHEDULE12"MIN 18 " D E E P R O O T B U B B L E R PL A N T I N G S O I L , T Y P E A PL A N T I N G S O I L , T Y P E B MU L C H SC D F O R S D C O N N E C T I O N TR E E P L A N T I N G - S T O R M DR A I N A G E C O N N E C T I O N LC F G 2 1 4" MI N 3"18" © G e n s l e r Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Su i t e 7 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Su i t e 6 0 1 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y Su i t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t Fl o o r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e Su i t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 PE R M I T N U M B E R : LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n s t r e e t Su i t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 Da t e D e s c r i p t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t r e e t , S t e 12 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a 01 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L GL7 . 0 4 DE T A I L S VA R I E S A B C D E UP PF UP OPEN TO ABOVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 D C B A AA BB 15.50.5 STAIR 01 STAIR 02 STAIR 03STAIR 04 STAIR 06 379 SF TRAINING 105D 380 SF TRAINING 105A 1055 SF EYE CLINIC 106 374 SF EMERGENCY SWITCHGEAR 161273 SF MAIN ELEC ROOM 163 298 SF UTILITY TRANSFORMER 162 1270 SF MACHINE SHOP 160 12355 SF NEW PRODUCT STABILIZATION LINE 134 259 SF LASER ROOM 1 134B 259 SF LASER ROOM 2 134A 231 SF ELECTRICAL 101A107 SF MAIL 101 401 SF EXIT CORRIDOR 147 2587 SF LOADING/ STAGING 143 790 SF NANO FAB 154 1157 SF OPTICS 150 196 SF CONDENSER ROOM 1 156 177 SF CONDENSER ROOM 2 155 95 SF OPTICS LAB STORAGE 152 158 SF GOWN ROOM 151 450 SF SCINT ROOM 153 93 SF IDF 134C 134 SF ELECTRICAL 142A 2091 SF WAREHOUSE 142 638 SF HALLWAY 129A 46 SF JAN 148A 416 SF WOMENS RESTROOM & SHOWER 148B 416 SF MENS RESTROOM & SHOWER 148C 864 SF SPECIAL PROJECTS_MIC R&D 03 139 1641 SF ADV MANUFACTURING 135 621 SF ULTRA PRODUCTION 141 5415 SF SYSTEM PRODUCTION & INSPECTION 140 351 SF PACKAGING AREA 140A 1145 SF R&D TEAM COLLABORATION 136 759 SF ADD LAB 137 104 SF GOWN ROOM 135A 205 SF CLEAN ROOM 135B 487 SF TRAINING FIELD SERVICE 133 99 SF CLOSET 133A 488 SF TRAINING FIELD SERVICE 131 99 SF CLOSET 131A 135 SF STORAGE 137A 1543 SF ENGINEERING LAB 138 317 SF WOMENS RESTROOM 126C 317 SF MENS RESTROOM 126A 65 SF ALL GENDER 126B 1363 SF MULTIPURPOSE 103 291 SF STORAGE 105C 188 SF MEETING 108 461 SF LI DEMO 117 330 SF PRECISION LI DEMO 121 341 SF EM DEMO 123 232 SF EM DEMO 124 287 SF EM DEMO 112 310 SF EM DEMO 114 310 SF EM DEMO 116 336 SF EM DEMO 120 169 SF MEETING 110 511 SF XRM DEMO 111 431 SF XRM DEMO 115394 SF SMT PCS LAB 118 397 SF CHASE (STOR) 119 5311 SF MEDITEC SHOWROOM 105 1560 SF RECEPTION 100 08 A5.61 4 A5.72 19 A5.83 22 A5.81 122 SF IDF 103B 437 SF MEETING 107 94 SF MED SERV DISINFECT 146 51 SF MED SERV CHEM 145 51 SF MED SERV HAZ. 144 246 SF MPOE 106A 424 SF SAMPLE PREP ROOM 113 432 SF EM DEMO 122 16 A5.64 A2.01 40 A2.01 38 A2.01 18 97 SF STORAGE 103A 188 SF MEETING 109 3711 SF LOBBY 104 399 SF TRAINING 105E 378 SF TRAINING 105B 135 SF CHILLER 138A 8 A5.62 330 SF TRAINING RM 130 331 SF TRAINING RM 132 468 SF NITROGEN ENCLOSURE 165 STAIR 05 09 A4.81 17 A4.83 1 A4.87 587 SF TRASH ENCLOSURE 166 25 A4.81 37 A4.83 8 A5.63 EM DEMO 15 8 A5.71 5'-0" X 25 PANELS WALL TYPE A2 124' - 11 13/16"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 30' - 5 7/16" WALL TYPE C 90' - 0"1' - 0"28' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE C 104' - 11 13/16" 5 ' - 0 " X 3 8 + 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " X 2 P A N E L S W A L L T Y P E A 2 1 9 6 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 5'-0" X 21 PANELS WALL TYPE A2 104' - 11 13/16"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE C 120' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE C 124' - 11 13/16" 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 1 9 0 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 47 ' - 6 " 60 ' - 0 " 47 ' - 6 " ________________08 A4.11 A2.02 18 A2.02 40 A2.02 38 A7.11 25 FEC RFEC DOOR & FRAME NON RATED CONSTRUCTION 1 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION 2 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION MILLWORK FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET RATED FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET 3 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER UP UP UP UP UP 529 SF BDF 220 36 A3.01 124 SF IDF 270 849 SF SQA SIMULATION LAB 241 503 SF CONCEPT LAB 266 261 SF WOMENS RESTROOM 256C 273 SF OPTICS LAB 251 432 SF ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT LAB 257 1249 SF SYSTEMS LAB 280229 SF MEETING 216 OPEN TO BELOW 119 SF ELEC 271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 D C B A AA BB 15.50.5 07 A5.61 7 A5.71 3 A5.7275 SF VESTIBULE 272 562 SF MEETING 227 95 SF OFFICE 285 95 SF OFFICE 284 95 SF OFFICE 278 95 SF OFFICE 277 97 SF OFFICE 289 95 SF OFFICE 207 95 SF OFFICE 206 107 SF OFFICE 213 107 SF OFFICE 211 105 SF OFFICE 212 105 SF OFFICE 210 105 SF OFFICE 222 105 SF OFFICE 225 107 SF OFFICE 223 107 SF OFFICE 226 95 SF OFFICE 229 95 SF OFFICE 230 95 SF OFFICE 236 95 SF OFFICE 235 107 SF OFFICE 240 107 SF OFFICE 243 105 SF OFFICE 242 105 SF OFFICE 239 95 SF OFFICE 246 95 SF OFFICE 247 95 SF OFFICE 254 95 SF OFFICE 253 105 SF OFFICE 258 105 SF OFFICE 262 107 SF OFFICE 259 107 SF OFFICE 261 95 SF HUDDLE 252 95 SF HUDDLE 245 95 SF HUDDLE 234 95 SF HUDDLE 228 101 SF OFFICE 290 101 SF OFFICE 291 95 SF HUDDLE 283 95 SF HUDDLE 276 283 SF MEETING 282 282 SF MEETING 281283 SF MEETING 203 283 SF MEETING 202 282 SF MEETING 232 330 SF MEETING 233 330 SF MEETING 249 330 SF MEETING 250 331 SF MEETING 215 331 SF MEETING 263 229 SF MEETING 264 149 SF HUDDLE 217 112 SF MOTHER ROOM 219 69 SF FOCUS 231 69 SF FOCUS 237 69 SF FOCUS 248 69 SF FOCUS 255 69 SF FOCUS 279 69 SF FOCUS 286 69 SF FOCUS 208 254 SF MATERIAL STOR 275A 1244 SF SUB ASSEMBLY LAB 275 6511 SF OPEN OFFICE 238 6287 SF OPEN OFFICE 288 280 SF MEETING 201 107 SF OFFICE 292 2363 SF PANTRY 287 14 A5.86 14 A5.85 CIRCULATION CIRCULATION 95 SF HUDDLE 205 95 SF HUDDLE 200 12 A5.65 187 SF STOR 244 149 SF HUDDLE 265 105 SF OFFICE 273 105 SF OFFICE 267 107 SF OFFICE 274 107 SF OFFICE 268 A2.01 40 A2.01 37 A2.01 38 A2.01 18 261 SF MENS RESTROOM 256A 145 SF ELEC 218 294 SF WOMENS RESTROOM 221A 294 SF MENS RESTROOM 221C 67 SF JAN 221D 70 SF COPY/PRINT 20497 SF STORAGE 209 32 SF JAN 256B 21' - 1 5/16"24' - 7 11/16"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"45' - 9"2 3 .9 6 ° 12 A5.66 16 A5.64 7 A5.62 7 A5.63 15 23' - 4" 5'-0" X 25 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 124' - 11 13/16"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 30' - 5 7/16" WALL TYPE A2 27' - 6 9/16"1' - 0" 5'-0" X 18 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 90' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE A1 104' - 11 13/16" 5 ' - 0 " X 3 8 + 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " X 2 P A N E L S W A L L T Y P E A 1 1 9 6 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 5'-0" X 21 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 104' - 11 27/32"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0"1' - 0" 5'-0" X 24 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 120' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE A1 124' - 11 27/32" 5 ' - 0 " X 3 8 + 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " X 2 P A N E L S W A L L T Y P E A 1 1 9 6 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 1 9 0 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 1 9 0 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 120' - 0" 104' - 11 7/8" 409' - 11 5/8" 24' - 7 5/8" 21' - 1 3/8" 24' - 7 5/8" 4' - 11 27/32" A2.02 18 A2.02 37 A2.02 40 A2.02 38 5 3/4" A7.50 35 FEC RFEC DOOR & FRAME NON RATED CONSTRUCTION 1 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION 2 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION MILLWORK FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET RATED FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET 3 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER UP UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 D C B A AA BB 15.50.5 134 SF VP 316 134 SF VP 313 132 SF VP 312 132 SF VP 317 95 SF OFFICE 308 95 SF OFFICE 307 107 SF OFFICE 389 6697 SF OPEN OFFICE 390 95 SF OFFICE 372 95 SF OFFICE 382 95 SF OFFICE 383 105 SF OFFICE 343 105 SF OFFICE 346 107 SF OFFICE 345 107 SF OFFICE 344 95 SF OFFICE 340 95 SF OFFICE 339 95 SF OFFICE 333 95 SF OFFICE 332 107 SF OFFICE 328 107 SF OFFICE 326 105 SF OFFICE 325 105 SF OFFICE 329 95 SF HUDDLE 348 95 SF OFFICE 350 69 SF FOCUS 334 69 SF FOCUS 341 282 SF MEETING 336 330 SF MEETING 337 100 SF HUDDLE 331 100 SF HUDDLE 338292 SF PANTRY 335 95 SF OFFICE 349 95 SF OFFICE 351 94 SF FOCUS 352 283 SF MEETING 379 283 SF MEETING 380 69 SF FOCUS 384 95 SF HUDDLE 381101 SF OFFICE 388 101 SF OFFICE 387 94 SF HUDDLE 309 98 SF FOCUS 373 283 SF MEETING 303 283 SF MEETING 302 331 SF MEETING 318 182 SF IDF 311 339 SF STORAGE 323 229 SF TEAM SPACE 319 149 SF HUDDLE 320 145 SF ELECTRICAL 321 112 SF MOTHER ROOM 322 563 SF MEETING 330 280 SF MEETING 301 279 SF MEETING 374 562 SF MEETING 347 117 SF ELECTRICAL 366 76 SF VESTIBULE 367 2280 SF KITCHEN/ BOH 357 306 SF DISH DROP 355A 390 SF EMPLOYEE KITCHEN 299 SF DISH WASH 355B 5150 SF CAFE / DINING 355 2751 SF COFFEE BAR 359 1011 SF COURTYARD 385 406 SF WOMENS RESTROOM 354C 401 SF MENS RESTROOM 354A 62 SF ALL GENDER 354B 6 A5.61 6 A5.71 2 A5.72 16 A5.87 21' - 1 5/16"24' - 7 11/16" A2.01 40 A2.01 37 A2.01 38 A2.01 18 30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"45' - 9"2 3 .9 6 ° 97 SF OFFICE 386 83 SF FOCUS 378 95 SF OFFICE 377 95 SF OFFICE 376 95 SF OFFICE 371 95 SF OFFICE 370 97 SF HUDDLE 369 2305 SF SERVERY 358 95 SF OFFICE 305 95 SF HUDDLE 300 12 A5.66 12 A5.65 70 SF COPY/PRINT 304 109 SF STORAGE 310 67 SF JAN 324D STAIR 05 95 SF HUDDLE 375 6 A5.62 95 SF OFFICE 306 5286 SF EXECUTIVE SUITE 315 267 SF CEO 314 5942 SF OPEN OFFICE 342 294 SF WOMENS RESTROOM 324A 294 SF MENS RESTROOM 324C 281 SF DECK SOUTH (UNOCCUPIED) 356A 534 SF DECK NORTH (UNOCCUPIED) 361A STAIR 06 6 A5.63 324 SF COURTYARD (UNOCCUPIED) 385A COURTYARD DESIGN SEE LANDSCAPE DWG 377 SF DECK NORTH 361 810 SF DECK SOUTH 356 15 5'-0" X 25 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 124' - 11 3/4"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 30' - 5 1/2" WALL TYPE A1 27' - 6 1/2"1' - 0" 5'-0" X 18 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 90' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0" 5 ' - 0 " X 3 8 + 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " X 2 P A N E L S W A L L T Y P E A 1 1 9 6 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 5'-0" X 21 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 104' - 11 3/4"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0"1' - 0" 5'-0" X 24 PANELS WALL TYPE A1 120' - 0"1' - 0" WALL TYPE B 28' - 0"1' - 0" 5 ' - 0 " X 3 8 + 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " X 2 P A N E L S W A L L T Y P E A 1 1 9 6 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 109' - 2 7/16" 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 1 9 0 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 1 9 0 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 5 7 / 8 " 98' - 5 23/32" 61' - 0" 25 ' - 0 " ________________07 A4.11 A2.02 18 A2.02 37 A2.02 40 A2.02 38 FEC RFEC DOOR & FRAME NON RATED CONSTRUCTION 1 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION 2 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION MILLWORK FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET RATED FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET 3 HR RATED CONSTRUCTION FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 D C B A AA BB 15.50.5 COURTYARD LOUVERED SCREEN ALIGN CT1 (SMD) ALIGNALIGN ALIGN MECH RISER MECH RISER MECH RISER MECH RISER AHU 7 (SMD) AHU 4 (SMD) AHU 2 (SMD) AHU 6 (SMD) AHU 3 (SMD) AHU 1 (SMD) AHU 5 (SMD) LOUVERED SCREEN LOUVERED SCREEN LOUVERED SCREEN CT2 (SMD) 2% SL O P E DO W N ELEC. ROOM ELEV. FOYER MECHANICAL ROOM 2 MECHANICAL ROOM 1 STAIR 06 ALIGN 15 ON STRUCTURE PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS (15% SPACE FOR FUTURE PV ARRAY) 5,200 SQ.FT ON STRUCTURE PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS (15% SPACE FOR FUTURE PV ARRAY) 1,430 SQ.FT ON STRUCTURE PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS (15% SPACE FOR FUTURE PV ARRAY) 2,690 SQ.FT 2% SL O P E DO W N SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT TIEBACK ANCHOR TIEBACK ANCHOR TIEBACK ANCHOR TIEBACK ANCHOR LOBBY ELEVATOR OVERRUN 5'-0" X 25 PANELS METAL PANEL 124' - 11 3/4"30' - 0"30' - 0" 5'-0" X 18 PANELS METAL PANEL 90' - 0"30' - 0" M E T A L P A N E L 1 9 6 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 5'-0" X 21 PANELS METAL PANEL 104' - 11 3/4"30' - 0" 5'-0" X 24 PANELS METAL PANEL 120' - 0"30' - 0" M E T A L P A N E L 1 9 6 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" PARAPET 52' - 0" SEE LINE OF SIGHT DIAGRAM IN EXHIBIT A 10 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " ABDC MT-2 MT-3 GL-1 GL-2 MT-2 MT-3 ENCLOSURES SHOWN DASHED FOR CLARITY. REFER TO A5 SERIES FOR MORE INFORMATION LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" 12345678910111213 0.5 PARAPET 52' - 0" 21' - 1 5/16"24' - 7 11/16"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0" 18 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " SEE LINE OF SIGHT DIAGRAM IN EXHIBIT A MT-2 GL-1 MT-3 GL-3 MT-2 GL-1 GL-3 GL-2 MT-3 GL-1 MT-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-4 GL-2 MT-2 MT-2 MT-2 MT-2 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15.5 PARAPET 52' - 0" 15 30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"45' - 9" 2' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " MT-2 GL-1 GL-1 MT-3 MT-3 GL-3 MT-2 GL-3 MT-2 GL-2 GL-1 GL-4 GL-2 MT-3 MT-2 MT-1 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" PARAPET 52' - 0" SEE LINE OF SIGHT DIAGRAM IN EXHIBIT A 10 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " A B C D MT-3 MT-2 MT-3 GL-1 GL-2 GL-1 MT-1 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" 18 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " MT-2 GL-1 MT-3 GL-3 MT-2 GL-1 GL-3 GL-2 MT-3 GL-1 MT-1 GL-1 GL-1 GL-4 GL-2 MT-2 MT-2 MT-2 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" PARAPET 52' - 0" 10 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " MT-2 GL-1 GL-1 MT-3 MT-3 GL-3 MT-2 GL-3 MT-2 GL-2 GL-1 GL-4 GL-2 MT-3 MT-2 MT-1 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " MT-3 MT-2 MT-3 GL-1 GL-2 GL-1 MT-1 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" LEVEL 02 18' - 0" LEVEL 03 34' - 0" ROOF 50' - 0" T.O. SCREEN 62' - 0" 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " MT-2 MT-3 GL-1 GL-2 MT-2 MT-3 11 A4.82 37' - 0" 20 ' - 6 " 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 12 A4.82 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" MT-4 7' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.) LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.)MT-4 7' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.)MT-4 3' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.)MT-4 2' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " A4.81 11 A4.81 28 A4.81 27 A4.8112 6 EQ OPEN GRATING = 37' - 0" 20 ' - 6 " OPEN METAL GRATING LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 2' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 7' - 6 " OPEN GRATING LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 7' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 2' - 0 " OPEN GRATING LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.)MT-4 OPEN SLIDING DOOR CANTILEVER SLIDING DOOR SHOWN DASHED FOR CLARITY INSTALL METAL PANEL TO SLIDING DOOR FRAME TO MATCH ENCLOSURE 3' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 3' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.)MT-4 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 3' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.)MT-4 LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 3' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 1/4" THICK METAL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 4"X4" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME 1/2" VERTICAL JOINT (TYP.) 1/4" HORIZONTAL JOIN (TYP.) MT-4 10 ' - 6 " 20 A4.84 8 A4.84 19 A4.84 51' - 4" 22' - 9"28' - 7" 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN NITROGEN ENCLOSURE TRASH ENCLOSURE 20 ' - 6 " 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 1% SLOPE DOWN 5' - 6"14' - 10 1/2" A4.83 19 A4.83 28 A4.8312 A4.83 39 51' - 4" 4 E Q M E TA L P A N E L = 2 0 ' - 6 " 24" FLAT SEAM MTL ROOF. FINISH TO MATCH WALL PANEL -MTL4 2% SL O P E DO W N 2% SL O P E DO W N LEVEL 01 0' - 0" CHAIN LINK FENCE 3' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 2 % S LO P E DOWN 2% SLOPE DOWN LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 7' - 6 " 3' - 0 " CHAIN LINK FENCE 10 ' - 6 " TRASH ENCLOSURE NITROGEN ENCLOSURE FLAT LOCK METAL ROOFING LEVEL 01 0' - 0" 7' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " FLAT LOCK METAL ROOFING 6" 8' - 0 " 1/4" THICK STAINLESS STEEL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 3"X3" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME CONCRETE PAD 6" 8' - 0 " 1/4" THICK STAINLESS STEEL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 3"X3" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME CONCRETE PAD 6" 8' - 0 " 1/4" THICK STAINLESS STEEL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 3"X3" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME CONCRETE PAD 6" 8' - 0 " 1/4" THICK STAINLESS STEEL PLATE PANEL SYSTEM INSTALLED ON 3"X3" GALVANIZED HSS ENCLOSURE FRAME CONCRETE PAD 5' - 0"4' - 7"1' - 0" 1' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 1' - 0 " CONCRETE PAD OPEN TO ABOVE BB PA R C E L D P. S . D . E . PA R C E L D P. S . D . E . PA R C E L D P. S . D . E . Gp Gp Pa Pa Pa Pa Up Up Up Up Up Gp Gp Gp Gp GpGpGpGpGp Gp Gp Gp Pa Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Pa GpGpGpGpGp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp GpGpGpGpGpGpGpGp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp PaPaPaPaPa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Up Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp Gp E8 A E8 B E8 A E8 B E8 E8 B E8 B E8 B E8 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1AE1A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1 A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E1A E2 A E2 A E2 A E2 A E2AE2A E2AE2AE4 E4 E1 E1 E1 E1AE1AE1AE1AE1AE1A E4 E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4E4 E5 E4E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4E4E4E4E4 E1 E1 E1 E5 E5 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E1 E1 E4 E4E2E2E2E2E2E2E2E2E2E2 E2E2E2E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E2 E4 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E5 E3 E3 E3 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 E6 A E6 A Xr e f R : \ 1 7 \ 1 7 0 4 3 Z e i s s G r a p h i t e \ D w g s \ a r c h \ A c t i v e \ X R - L A Y T - G R I D _ M S . d w g SEE SHEET LT1.01SEE SHEET LT1.02 RE F E R T O A P P E N D I X G F O R L I G H T I N G F I X T U R E P R O D U C T D A T A © G e n s l e r Da t e De s c r i p t i o n Pr o j e c t N a m e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r De s c r i p t i o n Sc a l e Se a l / S i g n a t u r e 20 1 7 Te l 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 3 7 0 0 Fa x 4 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 4 5 9 9 2 H a r r i s o n S t r e e t Su i t e 4 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s ST R U C T U R A L / M E P 56 0 M i s s i o n S t r e e t Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 5 7 . 9 4 4 5 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T 83 3 M a r k e t S t r e e t Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 3 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 4 8 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N TE L E / D A T A / S E C 13 3 3 B r o a d w a y , S t e 6 0 1 Oa k l a n d , C A 9 4 6 1 2 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 5 1 0 . 3 3 7 . 2 8 0 0 AV / A C O U S T I C 13 0 S u t t e r S t r e e t , F l r 5 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 9 7 . 0 4 4 2 CI V I L E N G I N E E R 25 5 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , S t e 2 0 0 Re d w o o d C i t y , C A 9 4 0 6 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 6 5 0 . 4 8 2 . 6 3 0 0 LI G H T I N G 30 0 B r a n n a n S t r e e t , S t e 2 1 2 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 7 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 3 4 8 . 8 2 7 3 PE R M I T N U M B E R : EN V I R O N M E N T A L 21 6 9 - G E a s t F r a n c i s c o B l v d Sa n R a f a e l C A . 9 4 9 0 1 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 4 5 4 . 8 8 6 8 FI R E S A F E T Y 23 5 M o n t g o m e r y S t , S t e 1 2 5 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 4 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 6 9 3 . 1 6 0 0 FO O D S E R V I C E 15 6 2 n d S t r e e t Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C A 9 4 1 0 5 Un i t e d S t a t e s Te l 4 1 5 . 9 2 2 . 5 9 0 0 11/27/2017 2:51:25 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITE II - ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt LT 1 . 0 2 01 . 2 4 0 9 . 0 0 0 In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a ZE I S S Si t e 1 5 A , D U B L I N Du b l i n , C A In n o v a t i o n C e n t e r C a l i f o r n i a Si t e L i g h t i n g P l a n - S o u t h 1" = 2 0 ' - 0 " G 0 1 . 0 2 . 1 8 D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N F I N A L S U B M I T T A L AE R I A L VI E W A C R O S S W A T E R S H E D T O M A I N E N T R Y ZE I S S E N T R Y P L A Z A VIEW FROM DUBLIN BLVD. Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2017-00025 (APN 986-0014-010-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Carl Zeiss, Inc. submitted a Planning Application f or the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan , a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 (208,650 square foot building), and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Zeiss Innovation Center project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project Site is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APN 986-0014-010-00); 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 is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigation s, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resol ution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, in 2001, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to evaluate whether additional environmental review than in the Eastern Dublin EIR was needed for a proposed Cisco development project. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH 1991103064). The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Statement of Overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the change in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation and zoning on the project site to Campus Office on April 15, 2003 (Resolution No. 65-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial 2 of 3 changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in ci rcumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco MND or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those biological impacts; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018 ; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received four comment letters during the public review period; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 13, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the p roject and related Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of the project; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx (incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated March 6, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the project and related Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City Council and recommended adoption of the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of the project; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Mitigated Negative Declaration and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 3 of 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration including comments received during the public review period, prior to taking action on the Project. B. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project as approved with mitigation will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines an d the City of Dublin Environmental Regulations. D. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis as to the environmental effects of the Project. E. Following adoption of this Resolution, City staff is authorized and directed to file with the County of Alameda a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Dublin City Council adopts the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (attached as Exhibit A) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit B) for the project and the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are imposed as conditions of approval for the project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, February 13, 2018 Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 1 A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM., by Commission Chair Mittan. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance At tendee Name Title Status Scott Mittan Comm ission Chair Present T ara Bhuthim ethee Comm ission Vice Chair Present Am it Kothari Planning Comm issioner Present Sam ir Qureshi Planning Comm issioner Present Stephen W right Planning Comm issioner Present 2. Oral Communications 2.1. Elect 2018 Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair. The Planning Commission elected Commissioner Bhuthimethee as the 2018 Commission Chair for the Planning Commission. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner SECOND: Amit Kothari, Planning Commissioner AYES: Wright, Mittan, Bhuthimethee The Planning Commission elected Commissioner Wright as the 2018 Commission Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner SECOND: Amit Kothari, Planning Commissioner AYES: Wright, Mittan, Bhuthimethee 2.2. Public Comment No public comments were made. Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 2 3. Consent Calendar 3.1. Approval of the Minutes of the January 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY: Stephen Wright, Planning Commissioner SECOND: Samir Qureshi, Planning Commissioner AYES: Kothari, Bhuthimethee, Mittan 4. Written Communication - None. 5. Public Hearing 5.1. PUBLIC HEARING: Safari Kid Daycare Center—Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Minor Use Permit (PLPA-2017-00050) Mandy Kang, Senior Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Jeff Antrim, President of Proforma Construction, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Jason Voorhees, Architect with Perkins, Williams & Cotterill Architects, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Manoj Vuriti, Project Applicant, made a presentation. Mark McClellan, P.E., Operations Manager for Mackay & Somps Civil Engineers, Inc., responded to questions posed by the Commission. Commission Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Christine Lillie provided public comment. Commission Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 3 Commissioner Mittan made a motion to approve the item with conditions. The motion was seconded by Commission Chair Bhuthimethee, and by a 2-3 vote (Commission Vice Chair Wright, Commissioner Kothari and Commissioner Qureshi voting No), the motion failed. Commission Chair Bhuthimethee re-opened the public hearing. Jeff Antrim, President of Proforma Construction, addressed the Commission. Commission Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. On a motion by Commissioner Kothari, seconded by Commissioner Qureshi, and by a 3-2 vote (Commissioner Mittan and Commission Chair Bhuthimethee voting against), the Planning Commission continued the public hearing so that Staff and the applicant work together on the following issues: • Address project circulation and the Commissioners’ perceived pedestrian and traffic safety concerns. • Incorporate enhanced paver treatment at driveway entries and the building entry. • Identify number of trees and shrubs that will be removed as a result of the driveway on Positano Parkway. • Applicant shall match the style of new curb cuts in driveways of the proposed project to those of the surrounding community. • Include additional stone veneer on entry columns. • Present a more modern color scheme, which compliments and/or enhances the surrounding neighborhood. • Incorporate more modest signs which may include a low profile monument sign and a smaller wall sign. • Use a sod material in the playground areas in place of the proposed hydro seed. Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 4 5.2. PUBLIC HEARING: Zeiss Innovation Center - Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2017-00025) Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Ben Tranel, Principal at Gensler, made a presentation and responded to questions posed by the Commission. Marcel Wilson, Landscape Architect at Bionic, made a presentation. Dr. Matthias Ismael, Project Applicant at Zeiss, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Caroll Crump, Senior Associate and Senior Project Manager at Gensler, responded to questions posed by the Commission. Tim Cremin, City Attorney, responded to questions posed by the Commission Commissioner Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing. Christina Caro provided public comment and submitted a comment letter into the record regarding the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. Rebecca Davis provided public comment and submitted a comment letter into the record regarding the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing. On a motion by Commissioner Quereshi, Seconded by Commission Vice Chair Wright, and by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions. RESOLUTION NO. 18 – 02 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT (PLPA 2017-00025) Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 5 RESOLUTION NO. 18 – 03 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT (PLPA 2017-00025) RESOLUTION NO. 18 – 04 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR PHASE 1 OF THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT (PLPA 2017-00025) 6. Unfinished Business – None. 7. New Business – None. 8. Other Business – Brief information only reports from Planning Commission and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commissioners about the upcoming League of California Cities Annual Planning Commissioners Academy that will be held from April 4 to 6 in Monterey, California, and requested that they confirm if they would like to attend the conference so that we can make their arrangements. Commission Vice Chair Wright asked Mr. Baker how the commissioners can move forward their ideas and concerns regarding the tools used by the City to provide public notices. Mr. Baker noted that the City’s public notice practices are directed by State Law, direction from the City Council and the Communications Office within the City Manager’s Office, and that the Commissioners concerns will be noted in the minutes and meeting video record. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Commission Chair Bhuthimethee at 11:09 p.m. Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 6 Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 18-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2017-00025 (APN 986-0014-010-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Carl Zeiss, Inc., submitted a Planning Application for the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 (208,650 square foot building), and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Zeiss Innovation Center project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project Site is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (APN 986 -0014-010-00); 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 is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for wh ich the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, in 2001, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to evaluate whether additional environmental review than in the Eastern Dublin EIR was needed for a proposed Cisco development project. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH 1991103064). The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Statement of Overriding co nsiderations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the change in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation and zoning on the project site to Campus Office on April 15, 2003 (Resolution No. 65-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial 2 of 3 changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco MND or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review f rom December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received four comment letters during the public review period; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 13, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the project and related Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony and used its independent judgement before making a recommendation on the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project which draft Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The Planning Commission recommendation is based on the Staff Report analysis and recommendation and on the findings set forth in the attached draft Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Mittan, Qureshi, Wright NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 3 of 3 Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 18-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2017-00025 (APN 986-0014-010-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Carl Zeiss, Inc., submitted a Planning Application for the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan , a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 (208,650 square foot building), and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “Zeiss Innovation Center project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 11.36 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (APN 986-0014-010-00); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects are required to be revie wed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and WHEREAS, the project is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a P rogram Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the East ern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, in 2001, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to evaluate whether additional environmental review than in the Eastern Dublin EIR was needed for a proposed Cisco dev elopment project. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH 1991103064). The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Statement of Overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the change in the General Plan designation and zoning on the project site to Campus Office on April 15, 2003 (Resolution No. 65-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstanc es, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco MND or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met ; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant ; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received four comment letters during the public review period; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the Planned Development Rezone, Site Development Review and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 13, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project for the P lanning Commission; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx recommending that the City Council approve the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment prior to making a recommendation on the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire project site. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Mittan, Qureshi, Wright NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Assistant Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 18 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR PHASE 1 OF THE ZEISS INNOVATION CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2017-00025 (APN 986-0014-010-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, Carl Zeiss, Inc., submitted a Planning Application for the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 (208,650 square foot building), and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known a s the “Zeiss Innovation Center project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 11.36 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (APN 986-0014-010-00); and WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the project plans illustrate the proposed site layout and elevations for an approximately 208,650 square foot building consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Panned Development zoning proposed as part of this project ; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review Permit application collectively defines this project and is available and on file in the Community Development Department; 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 is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, in 2001, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to evaluate whether additional environmental review than in the Eastern Dublin EIR was n eeded for a proposed Cisco development project. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH 1991103064). The City Council adopted a Mitigated 2 Negative Declaration (MND), Statement of Overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the change in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designation and zoning on the project site to Campus Office on April 15, 2003 (Resolution No. 65-03, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared a modified Initial Study to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center project under CEQA standards. The Initial Study examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco MND or whether any other standards for supplemental environmental review were met; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there were new potentially significant impacts associated with the project related to biological resources; therefore, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to analyze those biological impacts; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was circulated for public review from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received four comment letters during the public review period; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 13, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard ; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx recommending that the City Council approve the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18 -xx recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Zoning district with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development plan, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this resolution. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin, based on the findings and conditions of approval in the attached Resolution, recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Kothari, Mittan, Qureshi, Wright NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Assistant Community Development Director Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study December 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00025 City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 1 2/28/2018 BN 31503672v2 Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration PLPA-2017-00025 December 8, 2017 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No . 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR. As part of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The certified EIR contains mitigation measures that would be applied to any development within the project area, including the proposed project . Specific mitigation measures are noted in the Initial Study for the proposed project. The project site was also the subject of a previous Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Cisco Systems project in 2003. Cisco withdrew their application prior to entitlement; however, the property owner (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) decided to move forward with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for the project site. In 2003, the City Council amended the General Plan and EDSP from High Density Residential to Campus Office and adopted the Cisco IS/MND. The IS/MND assumed 430,090 square feet of office and Research and Development (R&D) space to accommodate 3,000 employees. The Cisco IS/MND was adopted by the City Council in April 2003. This Supplemental MND has been prepared for the project pursuant to the rules for supplemental environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as described below. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 2 2/28/2018 BN 31503672v2 Project Description Carl Zeiss, Inc. (ZEISS) has applied for a Planned Development Zoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit for the Zeiss Innovation Center (the proposed project). Figures illustrating the proposed project are shown at the end of this Initial Study and are referenced therein. The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of a three- story, 208,650 gross square feet (GSF) Research and Development (R&D) building with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces. Phase 2 would consist of an additional five-story, 224,440 GSF R&D building with 167 surface parking spaces, and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage. At build-out, the proposed project would include two low-to-mid-rise (three-story and five- story) R&D buildings totaling 433,090 GSF and used for research, development and testing, light assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting office spaces. Other internal uses would include conference rooms, an employee cafeteria, and a demonstration center/showroom on the ground floor. Parking would include one parking garage with 1,229 spaces and 167 surface parking spaces, for a total of 1,396 spaces. Other miscellaneous exterior features would include a utilities enclosure, trash/ recycling enclosure, nitrogen pad enclosure, bike storage enclosure, loading areas and landscaping. Seasonal wetlands are located on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine separate topographic depressions where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rainy season. Vegetation within the seasonal wetlands is sparse, and dominated by a mixture of predominantly non-native grasses and forbs, all of which are adapted to high levels of disturbance. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to 0.45 acres of seasonal wetlands and preserve the remaining 0.58 acres. In addition to the seasonal wetlands, two locally rare plant species were identified, namely; Congdon’s tarplant and California dock. The project site would accommodate approximately 1,500 employees at build out. To help reduce drive-alone trips, the Applicant has agreed to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program with a goal of reducing travel trip by 20% from the estimated average daily trips as identified in the Traffic Consistency Analysis (Kimley-Horn, December 2017). Trip reduction measures to be considered may include the following:  Provide complementary BART and bus passes and provide guaranteed ride home services for emergencies.  Provide dedicated on-campus parking (5% of supply) for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs).  Provide staggered working hours.  Provide additional bike racks and lockers on-campus, including shower facilities. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 3 2/28/2018 BN 31503672v2  Conduct educational outreach and marketing to promote the use of non-automotive options for commuting by having an on -site TDM kiosk and TDM coordinator. The proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Campus Office. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study, the project site has been planned for urbanization since the Eastern Dublin EIR approval in 1993 (and subsequent addenda in May 1993 and August 1994). The project site was also the subject of a previous IS/MND for the proposed Cisco Systems project in 2003. Cisco withdrew their application prior to entitlement; however, the property owner (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) decided to move forward with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (ESDP) amendments for the project site. In 2003, the City Council amended the General Plan and EDSP from High Density Residential to Campus Office and adopted the Cisco IS/MND which assumed 430,090 square feet of office and R&D space to accommodate 3,000 employees. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified various environmental impacts, and mitigations were adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan . For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND that are applicable to the project and project site continue to apply to the currently proposed project as further discussed in the attached IS/Supplemental MND. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for this Project. The City of Dublin has determined that a Supplemental MND is the appropriate CEQA review for the project. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan land use designation for the project site (commonly referred to as Site 15A) and is similar in size to the 430,090- square foot research and development project analyzed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. Through the IS/Supplemental MND for the proposed project, the City has determined that a Supplemental MND is required. Because the Cisco Systems IS/MND was prepared in 2001, updates to biological resources, cultural (historic) resources and transportation/traffic are included in this IS/Supplemental MND to confirm previous findings. It was concluded that biological resources are the only environmental issue where a potential new significant impact could occur. This new significant impact has been analyzed and mitigation proposed as described in the IS/Supplemental MND. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 4 2/28/2018 BN 31503672v2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that a Supplemental MND is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the proposed land uses on the project site is not a substantial change from the Cisco Systems IS/MND analysis and would not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? The only substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR relates to biological resources located on the project site. The prior CEQA documents did not identify any biological resources on the site. Recent surveys (2017) of the site have identified wetlands and certain protected plant species as located on the site. The proposed project may cause significant impacts on these resources. Therefore, a Supplemental MND has been prepared to analyze these impacts and include mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant. This is documented in the attached Initial Study/Supplemental MND. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the project would have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the Applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the Applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached IS/Supplemental MND, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA documents except for biological resources (as discussed above). Cultural Resources were further analyzed based on the Section 106 Report prepared by the Applicant, as required for their federal permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed fill of wetlands. However, this additional information does not identify any new or significant impact of the project on cultural resources. A traffic consistency analysis also was prepared for the project. The traffic analysis does not identify any new or significant impact of the project on transportation. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 5 2/28/2018 BN 31503672v2 CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on the project site for all areas except biological resources. d) Should a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration be prepared? A Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required because of new impacts and mitigation measures for biological resources. Other than biological resources, there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts of the project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND, as documented in the attached IS/Supplemental MND. Conclusion This Supplemental MND is prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 based on the attached IS/Supplemental MND. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND adequately address the potential environmental impacts for the project site, except for biological resources, as documented in the attached IS/Supplemental MND. This Supplemental MND will be circulated for public review for 30 days in accordance with CEQA requirements. The IS/Supplemental MND, Eastern Dublin EIR, Cisco Systems IS/MND and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. BN 31503672v2 Zeiss Innovation Center Initial Study/ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration December 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00025 City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page i Table of Contents Background & Project Description 1 Environmental Checklist 8 Determination 11 Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses 12 Appendices A Biological Resources Assessment Report (WRA, 2017) B Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (WRA, 2017) C Rare Plant Survey Report (WRA 2017) D Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010 (TRA 2017) E Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis (Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2017) List of Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location Figure 2a: Site Plan – Phase 1 Figure 2b: Site Plan – Phase 2 Figure 3: Preliminary Landscape Plan – Phase 1 Figure 4: Existing Wetlands Figure 5: Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan – Phase 1 Figure 6: Preliminary Utility Plan – Phase 1 Figure 7: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan – Phase 1 Figure 8: Conceptual Renderings Note: All figures are included at the end of the document. List of Tables Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 1 Zeiss Innovation Center Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration Background & Project Description Project Title Zeiss Innovation Center Lead Agency Name and Address City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Contact Person and Phone Number Martha Battaglia Associate Planner Phone: 925-452-2152 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov Project Location & Setting The project site is in eastern Dublin, on the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road in the City of Dublin, CA, and encompasses 11.36 net acres of land (APN: 9860014-010- 00). See Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location. The project site is currently vacant, relatively flat and contains native and introduced species of grass. There are six existing trees at the southwest corner of the Central Parkway and Park Place intersection. One of these trees is located off-site and five are located within the project boundary. Seasonal wetlands are located on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine separate topographic depressions where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rainy season. Vegetation within the seasonal wetlands is sparse, and dominated by a mixture of predominantly non-native grasses and forbs. The project site is bordered by Central Parkway to the north, Park Place to the east, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the west . The project site is commonly referred to as Site 15A. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 2 Property north of Site 15A has been developed with an office complex (Microdental); the property east of the project site was developed as the Sybase Corporate Headquarters complex, then as the SAP regional office, and is currently unoccupied. Property south of the project site is developed with commercial uses. Properties west of the project site are undergoing development as residential uses (Boulevard). Project Applicant’s Name and Address Carl Zeiss, Inc. Site 15A (Northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road) APN: 986-0014-010-00 Dublin, CA 94568 General Plan Designation Campus Office Specific Plan Designation Campus Office Zoning PD – Planned Development- Campus Office Project Context The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51-93 and Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994. This document is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." The project site was also the subject of a previous Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Cisco Systems prepared in 2001. Cisco withdrew their application prior to entitlement; however, the property owner (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) decided to move forward with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for the project site. In 2003, the City Council amended the General Plan and EDSP from High Density Residential to Campus Office and adopted the Cisco IS/MND. The IS/MND assumed 430,090 square feet of office and Research and Development (R&D) space to accommodate 3,000 employees. Cisco IS/MND was adopted by the City Council in April 2003. The project site is currently zoned “PD- Planned Development” as shown on the Dublin Zoning Map (as amended through December 9, 2014). The land use is “Campus Office” as shown on the Dublin General Plan – Land Use (as amended through October 6, 2015). City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 3 Subsequent Technical Studies Because this Initial Study “tiers” off the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, it relies on the technical studies and analysis presented in those prior CEQA documents. Supporting that analysis, three additional technical studies were completed in support of the current (Zeiss) project application. These are summarized below. Biological Resources Subsequent to the certification of the Cisco IS/MND, and as part of on-site analysis associated with the current Zeiss development application, nine seasonal wetlands (totaling 1.03 acres) were identified. As a result, the project site was surveyed for biological resources by WRA, Inc. in April 2017. In addition to the seasonal wetlands, two locally rare plant species were identified, namely; Congdon’s tarplant and California dock. The results of WRA’s analysis were documented in a Biological Resources Assessment Report (2017), Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (WRA 2017) and Rare Plant Survey Report (WRA 2017), and are included as an appendix to this IS/Supplemental MND. Cultural Resources As part of the regulatory federal permit application for the project, an historic survey of the project site was conducted by Tom Origer & Associates. The results of the survey and archival research did not identify any historic resources. Tom Origer & Associates’ analysis is documented in a Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010, and is included as an appendix to this IS/Supplemental MND. Traffic Consistency Analysis Kimley-Horn & Associates prepared a Traffic Consistency Analysis in 2017 to evaluate the proposed project’s conformance with the traffic impacts analyzed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR. The Traffic Consistency Analysis concluded that the proposed project would generate less traffic than previously analyzed and no new impacts, since the proposed project would accommodate 1,500 employees, as compared to the estimated 3,000 employees analyzed for the Cisco project. The Traffic Consistency Analysis is included as an appendix to this IS/Supplemental MND. Project Description Carl Zeiss, Inc. (ZEISS) has applied for a Planned Development Zoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit for the Zeiss Innovation Center (the proposed project). Figures illustrating the proposed project are shown at the end of this IS/Supplemental MND. ZEISS is an internationally leading technology enterprise operating in the optics and optoelectronics industries. The ZEISS Group develops, produces and distributes measuring technology, microscopes, medical technology, eyeglass lenses, camera and cine lenses, City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 4 binoculars and semiconductor manufacturing equipment. The new ZEISS Innovation Center in Dublin would bring together scientists and researchers as well as operations from multiple business groups under one roof . Research and development groups for: 1) Ophthalmic Diagnostics of Medical Technology, 2) ZEISS 3D X-ray microscopes (XRM) research and industry, 3) Semiconductor & Electronics process control systems and 4) Corporate Innovation & Research; would be brought together in the new center. For the Medical Technology Business Group, the Zeiss Innovation Center would also serve as the headquarters for its U.S. subsidiary which represents all ZEISS Medical Technology in the U.S. Building Program The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of a three- story, 208,650 gross square feet (GSF) R&D building (approximately 62 feet in height to roof), with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces (see Figure 2a: Site Plan – Phase 1). Phase 2 would consist of an additional five-story, 224,440 GSF R&D building (approximately 82 feet in height to roof and 97 feet to the top of the screen), and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage (see Figure 2b: Site Plan – Phase 2). At build-out, the proposed project would include two low-to-mid-rise (three-story and five- story) R&D buildings totaling 433,090 GSF and would be used for research, development and testing, light assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting of fice spaces. Other internal uses would include conference rooms, an employee cafeteria, and a demonstration center/ showroom on the ground floor. At build-out parking would include one parking garage with 1,229 spaces and 167 surface parking spaces, for a total of 1,396 spaces. Other miscellaneous exterior features would include a utilities enclosure, trash/recycling enclosure, nitrogen pad enclosure, bike storage enclosure, loading areas and landscaping. The proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan Land Use Designation of Campus Office. Landscaping As shown in Figure 3: Preliminary Landscape Plan – Phase 1, the primary landscape features are located on the north side of the Phase 1 building. This would include the avoided and enhanced seasonal wetland (W6) and a surrounding buffer planted with wetland and native plants. An impervious pathway would also be constructed within the buffer surrounding the seasonal wetland. West of the seasonal wetland is a 20-foot wide pedestrian boardwalk, landscaped garden, and permanent water feature. South of the Phase 1 building, landscaping would include shrubs surrounding a landscaped bio-retention basin. Shrubs and trees would also be planted around the perimeter of the project site. The project site currently contains nine seasonal wetlands that compromise approximately 1.03 acres as shown in Figure 4: Existing Wetlands. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to 0.45 acres of seasonal wetlands. The proposed project would City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 5 avoid and enhance the largest 0.58-acre seasonal wetland (W6) by planting native wetland vegetation, and preserving an upland buffer around its perimeter. Site Access & Circulation For both phases of development, primary access to the project site would be via Park Place, just south of Central Parkway. A second service entrance would be from an easement through a drive aisle in an existing parking lot accessed from Park Place, just north of Dublin Boulevard. This access point would be limited to service deliveries and emergency vehicles. The project site would accommodate approximately 1,500 employees at build out. To help reduce drive-alone trips, the Applicant has included as part of the project a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program with a goal of reducing travel trip by 20% from the estimated average daily trips as identified in the Traffic Consistency Analysis (Kimley-Horn, December 2017). Trip reduction measures to be included to reach the 20% reduction will be chosen from the following:  Provide complementary BART and bus passes and provide guaranteed ride home services for emergencies.  Provide dedicated on-campus parking (5% of supply) for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs).  Provide staggered working hours.  Provide additional bike racks and lockers on-campus, including shower facilities.  Conduct educational outreach and marketing to promote the use of non-automotive options for commuting by having an on -site TDM kiosk and TDM coordinator. The project Applicant also has committed to providing a shuttle service to and from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This shuttle would access the project site via Park Place, just south of Central Parkway. Shuttles would pick-up and drop-off in the parking lot. Infrastructure and Utilities Detailed engineering design has been completed for Phase 1 and conceptually only for Phase 2. Subsequent Phase 2 building plan level review and approvals would include detailed engineering design. Grading The project site is essentially flat, sloping slightly downward from the northeast to the southwest. Earthwork would include minimal grading and contouring to accommodate drainage and elevation requirements. Grading would result in elevations contours changing from 354 feet (above mean sea level) in the northeast corner, to 345 feet fronting Dublin Boulevard (nine-foot grade change in elevation). The project would require the cut of 9,500 City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 6 cubic yards of soil, and the import of 9,000 cubic yards of soil; for a net export of 500 cubic yards. See Figure 5: Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan – Phase 1. Water Existing domestic water mains available for connection adjacent to the project site include a 12” main in Dublin Boulevard, a 14” main on Central Parkway, and a 16” main on Arnold Road. As part of the proposed project, a new domestic water service lateral would be constructed from Arnold Road to the Phase 1 R&D building. Phase 2 would tie into these existing on-site extensions. The proposed project would utilize an existing 24” recycled water main on Dublin Boulevard and a 6” service line stubbed onto the property from Dublin Boulevard. The project would use recycled water for landscape irrigation. Sewer There is an existing 36” sewer on Dublin Boulevard, and a 15” sewer on Arnold Road that enlarges to 27” at a manhole located midblock with Central Parkway. A new proposed sanitary sewer lateral would connect with the existing 27” sewer main on Arnold Road. See Figure 6: Preliminary Utility Plan – Phase 1. Stormwater The project site is currently almost entirely pervious. Because the project would be creating or replacing greater than 10,000 square feet of impervious area, it is considered a Regulated Project, and would be required comply with Provisions C.3 (New Development & Redevelopment) of the State Water Resources Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Because the project would create or replace more than one acre of impervious surface, it would also be required to incorporate hydromodification management measures. Per the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (BKF, 2017), construction of the proposed project would create 352,306 square feet of impervious surface area. Total bio-retention area required to meet Alameda County C.3 requirements (4% of effective impervious area) is 14,663 square feet. The project is providing 12,461 square feet of bio-retention area. The Alameda County C.3 Technical Guidance Manual allows bio-retention areas to be sized using a combination flow and volume method. Providing ponding height allows for some reductions to the overall footprint area of the bio-retention planter. Impervious surfaces include building rooftops, roadways, surface parking lots, and the Phase 2 parking garage. As shown in Figure 7 Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan – Phase 1, most of the stormwater run-off would gravity flow via underground collector pipes to the southwest corner of the project site, where it would then be pumped into an 11,709 square foot primary bio-retention basin and be treated. During heavy storm events, flows that exceed the design treatment flow would bypass this primary bio-retention basin and be directed to an adjacent existing 36” storm drain pipe located in the Dublin Boulevard right-of-way. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 7 The initial sizing of this basin is based on a minimum of four percent of the contributing impervious area and has been adequately sized to accommodate the impervious drainage requirements necessary for the construction of Phase 2 as well. To assist in maintaining and enhancing the overall environmental quality features of seasonal wetland (W6), a separate drainage management system would be constructed. Rooftop drainage from 18,500 square feet of northwest corner of the Phase 1 building would be directed to 752 square feet secondary biorentention basin that would be incorporated as a landscape feature in the adjacent garden. Drainage from this portion of the rooftop would be treated and gravity flow into the adjacent wetland. Both biofiltration basins have been conceptually designed to be constructed with 18-inces of sandy loam soil over 12-inches of drain rock. Like the primary biofiltration basin, excess stormwater during heavy storm events would drain from two inlets constructed on the east side of wetland, and be discharged into the City’s storm drain system on Dublin Boulevard. Project Approvals PD-Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans The Applicant has proposed a PD-Planned Development zoning for Site 15A. Existing zoning for Site 15A is Planned Development-Campus Office. The proposed PD-Planned Development would include a Development Plan that would establish standards and regulations governing the future use, development, improvement and maintenance of the project site, in accordance with Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. As part of the PD-Planned Development zoning application, a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan has been prepared for City approval describing in detail the proposed development program for the proposed project. Details of the development plan are described above. Site Development Review Permit Approval of a Site Development Review Permit is also required as part of the entitlement process for the project, pursuant to Chapter 8.104 of the Du blin Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of Site Development Review is to promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development within the City and to ensure compliance with all applicable development regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 8 Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agricultural Resources ☐ Air Quality ☒ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology / Water Quality ☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation / Traffic ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance Instructions 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No New Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see Source List, attached). A "No New Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No New Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 9 be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentiall y Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. 5. Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. d. A “No New Impact” finding means that there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the impact area beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the impact area. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: o the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 10 and o the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process . (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation . Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 11 Determination Based on this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required due to changed circumstances and new impacts to biological resources (wetlands and certain protected plant species). For all other environmental impact areas, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental review is required. X CITY OF DUBLIN _________________________________ _____________________________ Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner Date City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 12 Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses Aesthetics ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☒ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings? ☒ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☒ Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and consists of generally flat land with a distinct but gentle slope from north to south, towards the I-580 freeway. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site as "valley grasslands," which are located on the areas near I-580 in the south and southwest portion of Eastern Dublin. None of the major visual features identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (hillsides and ridges or watercourses) exist on the project site. The project site is not located within a scenic corridor as identified in the General Plan or EDSP. The nearest scenic corridor to the project site is the I-580 freeway, which is located approximately a third of a mile south of the project site. Regulatory Framework Dublin General Plan The project site is included in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 13 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 7,200 acres of land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes several policies and programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development . Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors and public spaces. Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation . Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the back- drop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - no development”) are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors . Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible from designated scenic corridors. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:  Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors.  Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.  Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8IC) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 14  IM 3.8/F analyzed alteration of the visual character of the Eastern Dublin flatlands. No mitigation measures were identified and the impact was identified as significant and unavoidable.  Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/1) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. Cisco Systems IS/MND The Cisco Systems IS/MND contains one mitigation measure to reduce anticipated visual impacts. This includes:  Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce potential glare impacts. The mitigation measure requires pole-mounted street lights to be equipped with cut-off lenses and oriented down toward interior streets to minimize unwanted light and glare spill over, building security lighting and other lights would be required to be directed downward, and all exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare manufacture. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Scenic vistas, views No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would convert an existing vacant site to an urban use. This potential impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP EIR (Impact 3.8C, Obscuring Natural Features and Impact 3.8F, Alterat ion of Visual Character of Flatlands) and it was determined that no mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded this impact would be a potentially significant irreversible change and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. The impacts of the proposed project with respect to scenic vistas are within the scope of the impacts associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for this project site. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Scenic resources No New Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to the I-580 freeway, which is a state- designated scenic highway, nor is it located adjacent or near other local scenic routes, includin g City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 15 Tassajara Road or Fallon Road and is therefore not within a scenic corridor. No impacts are anticipated since the project site is not located near an identified scenic corridor. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environme ntal review is required for this impact area. (c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the project site or surrounding area No New Impact. The proposed project would consist of three buildings. During Phase 1, one 3- story R&D building would be constructed with a height of approximately 62 feet to the roof. As part of Phase 2, a second five-story R&D building that is approximately 82 feet in height to roof and 97 feet to the top of the screen, and a separate five-story parking structure with a building height of approximately 60 feet would be constructed. Perspective views of the proposed project are shown in Figure 8: Conceptual Renderings. These proposed land uses, and their building height and scale, are consistent with those lan d uses in the surrounding area. For example, the former Sybase office building complex (east and adjacent to the project site) consists of two six-story buildings. Additionally, four- to five-story office buildings are located directly north or the project site (across Central Parkway). These buildings are consistent in use, visual character, scale, mass and height, as compared to the proposed project. Additionally, this impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in an associated Statement of Overriding Considerations. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for this project site, therefore no additional discussion or analysis is necessary. The impacts of the proposed project with respect to degradation of existing visual character and quality are within the scope of impacts associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to visual character of the project site or surrounding area beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare due to new street lighting, parking lot lighting and building security lighting. In some instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, streets and other areas that are not intended to be lighted. Mitigation Measure 1 from the Cisco Systems IS/MND was included to reduce spillover of lighting impacts to a level of less-than-significant. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 16 Similarly, glass may be used as one of the primary exterior materials for the two buildings. Depending on the type of glass used, potential glare could result onto adjacent sites and nearby roadways. Mitigation Measure 1, would also reduce potential glare impacts to a less-than- significant level. Consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 1. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to light and glare beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☒ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 17 Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the project site is an "approximate urbanized area" and is therefore not prime farmland. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Figure 3.1-C), no portion of the project site is encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement contract. Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed project for this section. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related to agricultural resources . Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin and the Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan. This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1/F stated that buildout of Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands . Finally, Impact IM 3.1/E noted indirect impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also identified as an insignificant impact. Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-c) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning No New Impact. The project site was previously used for governmental purposes and is not identified as prime farmlands in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No impacts are therefore anticipated regarding prime farmland or loss of agricultural production . This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to farmland or zoning beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 18 Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Air Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impacts Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations . Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☒ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ☒ c) 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)? ☒ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☒ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ☒ Environmental Setting Dublin is in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants, including ozone and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the basin. Regulatory Framework Bay Area Air Quality Management District The agency for air pollution control for the basin is the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 19 stationary sources and maintaining air quality monitoring stations throughout the basin. BAAQMD, in coordination with Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Bay Area Clean Air Plan for the basin. A Clean Air Plan is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the national and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The term non-attainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded . The Clean Air Plan, once submitted to and approved by the Air Resources Board, becomes an integral part of the State Implementation Plan. A State Implementation Plan is a federal requirement; each state prepares one to describe existing air quality conditions and measures that would be followed to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project . These include:  Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced impacts related to emission of construction generated dust to a less-than-significant level by requiring construction projects to water graded areas in the late morning and end of the day, cleanup mud and dust onto adjacent streets daily, covering of haul trucks, avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment, revegetating graded areas and similar measures.  Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11IB) but not to a less-than- significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.  Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than- significant level. These measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C remained significant and unavoidable.  Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 20 Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable air quality mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Consistent with air quality plans No New Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by the BAAQMD, since the proposed amount of development has been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Violate air quality standards No New Impact. Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedances of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Eastern Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.111A and B). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0, Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements, short-term project-level air quality impacts would be less-than-significant. These mitigation measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order . With adherence to these mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, project-level impacts would be less-than-significant, and no additional analysis is required. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that potential cumulative air quality impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. Similarly, potential air quality cumulative impacts related to mobile source emissions of ROG and NOx, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with mitigation measures, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Eastern Dublin EIR Impacts 3.11/C and E). The air quality impacts of the proposed project are within the scope of the project impacts covered by the Cisco MND and the Eastern Dublin EIR, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term, cumulative impacts. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 21 With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality standards beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Cumulatively considerable air pollutants No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions related to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as significant irreversible impacts. Generally, such impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as from stationary sources. The air quality impacts of the proposed project are within the scope of the project impacts covered by the Cisco IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for long - term impacts. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air pollutants beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmen tal review is required for this impact area. (d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors No New Impact. There are no sensitive receptors (e.g. residential, schools, churches, hospitals) proposed or surrounding the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur to sensitive receptors. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to pollutant concentrations or creation of objectionable odors beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 22 Biological Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impacts Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☒ b) 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☒ c) 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? ☒ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☒ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☒ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☒ Environmental Setting Wetlands and Other Waters As shown in Figure 4: Existing Wetlands, seasonal wetlands are located on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine separate topographic depressions where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rainy season. Vegetation within the seasonal wetlands is City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 23 sparse, and dominated by a mixture of predominantly non-native grasses and forbs, all of which are adapted to high levels of disturbance. Special Status Species Special-status Plant Species Based on field surveys conducted by WRA, Inc. in April 2017, two locally rare plant species: Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) and California dock (Rumex californicus), were observed on the project site. Ten square feet of California dock was identified on the northwestern edge of the largest seasonal wetland. Congdon’s tarplant was observed sporadically throughout the project site. Special-status Wildlife Species Based on field surveys conducted by WRA, Inc. in April 2017, two special-status wildlife species, Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) have been observed or have the potential to occur in the project area. Regulatory Framework Federal and California Endangered Species Acts The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the continued exi stence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA . If a federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) under Section 7(a)(2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit. The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The California Department of Wildlife (CDFW) implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintain the California Natural Diversity Database, a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 24 During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to comment on the pot ential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals . Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The USFWS administers the MBTA. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC). All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC], section 703, et seq.) and California statute (FGC section 3503.5). The golden eagle and bald eagle are also afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act, amended in 1973 (16 USC, section 669, et seq.). Waters of the United States The United States Army Corp of Engineers regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to deline ate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark, and herein referred to as non -wetland waters. Non-wetland waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S. generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the State The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, r iparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 25 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit or fall under other federal jurisdiction and have the potential to impact Waters of the State are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project . These include:  Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7IA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation management and enhancement plans for open space areas and development of a revegetation plan for disturbed areas that remain undeveloped.  Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced indirect impacts related to vegetation removal (IM3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible and with native species.  Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less -than-significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.  Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle and tri-colored blackbird (IM 3.7/F-I) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for the species and protection of impacted habitat areas.  Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0 reduced impacts related to burrowing owl and American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure mandates preconstruction surveys and a minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing o wl nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season.  Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 26 Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site, except as modified below. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species Special Status Wildlife Species – Mammals Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As determined in the project site survey conducted on April 12, 2017 by WRA, Inc., the project area is not currently inhabited by Western burrowing owls. Due to a moderate potential of the species to inhabit ground squirrel burrows, the project area has the continued potential to support this species. Implementation of the proposed project could result in the displacement of burrowing owls during construction activities, and once completed could result in the removal of suitable burrowing owl habitat. Permanent loss of occupied burrows and habitats would be considered potentially significant. This potential impact was previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a mitigation measure was included in the EIR. That mitigation measure is being updated as part of this IS/Supplemental MND as MM BIO-1. Implementation of MM Bio-1 would reduce this potentially significant impact to the Western burrowing owl to a less-than-significant level and replaces the mitigation measure in the Eastern Dublin EIR. MM BIO-1 Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl for the project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground -disturbing activities and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 27 Implement Avoidance Measures If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project Applicant shall implement the following avoidance or mitigation measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.  Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through August 31.  Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non- migratory resident burrowing owls.  Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development.  Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.  Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows.  Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). Conduct Burrow Exclusion If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not po ssible, prior to the first ground- disturbing activities, the project Applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project Applicant shall consult with the CDFW to develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on a project site survey conducted by WRA, Inc., two locally rare species were observed in the project area: Congdon’s City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 28 tarplant and California dock. The potential loss of Congdon’s tarplant and California dock within the project area would be considered a potentially significant impact . Congdon’s tarplant populations were observed throughout the project site, occurring in seasonal wetlands and mesic areas. California dock were also observed on-site and may be disturbed. Disturbance or removal of wetland habitat could potentially result in the loss of this special status species, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce this potentially significant impact to Congdon’s Tarplant and California dock to a less-than-significant level. MM BIO-2 Collect Congdon’s Tarplant and California Dock Seed Stock Prior to obtaining the first grading or building permit for development activities involving subsurface disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Conduct Rare Plant Surveys The project Applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance with agency protocols. Impacts to special-status plant species shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible and habitat that supports special-status plant species shall be preserved. Rare plant surveys shall be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the proposed project would not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. Where surveys determine that special-status plant species are present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant and/or California Dock Seed Stock) shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established in accordance with regulatory agency standards prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. Where avoidance of impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and California dock is not feasible, seed or plant propagules shall be collected from these species. Under the direction of the qualified botanist, seed or plant propagules shall be harvested from at least 50 percent of plants within areas of impact. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 29 The project Applicant shall follow the mitigation guidelines as established in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; 2010), including:  An adequate floristic survey of the site shall have been completed within the preceding 3 years (under normal rainfall conditions), and spatially explicit data on the extent of the focal plant population shall be available.  To mitigate impacts on a plant population, a parcel where the focal plant species occurs may be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (PLA‐2).  An assessment of the plant population on both the impact site and the proposed mitigation site shall be conducted by a qualified botanist. The mitigation population shall be equivalent in terms of population size and vigor than the population affected at the project site.  As identified in table 3-12 of the EACCS, mitigation for focal plant species within the Livermore Valley Mitigation Area is 5:1 and refers to the size of the population that is affected or protected. The qualified botanist shall demonstrate that the harvested seeds have been planted and are surviving at a rate pursuant to the EACCS. The Applicant will submit an annual monitoring report to the City of Dublin, which details monitoring methods and maintenance for successful establishment, and reporting protocols. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the City of Dublin prior to the start of local construction activities. Contingency measures should be included in the plan if it appears the success criterion will not be met after three years. Monitoring reports shall include photo-documentation, planting specifications, a site layout map, descriptions of materials used, and justification for any deviations from the monitor ing plan. Nesting Birds Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project includes construction activities that may affect nesting birds including ground disturbance activities which would require grading and vegetation removal. Loggerhead shrike is a special-status bird known to nest in the project area. Trees, fresh emergent wetland vegetation and grassland could provide potentially suitable habitat for this species, which is protected under the MBTA and the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Project activities that may affect nesting birds include vegetation removal and ground disturbance activities which would require grading, and vegetation removal. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in the loss of active nests, which would be considered a potentially significant impact on special-status bird species and birds protected under the MBTA. This potential impact was previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a mitigation measure was included in the EIR. That mitigation measure is being updated as part of this IS/Supplemental MND as MM BIO-3. Implementation of MM BIO-3 would reduce this potentially significant impact to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level and replaces the mitigation measure in the Eastern Dublin EIR. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 30 MM BIO-3 Protect Birds Covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Prior to obtaining the first site, building or other permit for development activities relevant to the timing identified below, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance would vary based on species and conditions at the project site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. Note that this mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). With adherence to these new mitigation measures, the project’s direct impacts to sensitive or special-status species would reduce impacts to less-than-significant. For other impacts not addressed specifically above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for those other impact areas. (b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat , natural community, or wetlands Potential Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on site surveys by WRA in April 2017, 1.03 acres of seasonal wetlands were identified. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to 0.45 acres of seasonal wetlands and preserve the remaining 0.58 acres. Since fill of wetlands and “other waters of the U.S.” are prohibited without first obtaining permits and approvals from the federal and state agencies, fill of wetlands waters of the State would result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM BIO-4 would reduce this potentially significant impact to wetlands to a less-than-significant level. MM BIO-4 Wetland Mitigation Plan Prior to obtaining the first site grading or building permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: The project Applicant shall obtain all required resource agency permits and shall prepare and obtain resource agency approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net-loss of wetland and waters habitat. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 31 designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or waters, which may include buying credits at a mitigation bank approved by regulatory agencies . The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following: a) Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values; b) Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies; c) Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored; d) An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitiga tion areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and e) A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife No New Impact. The project site is substantially surrounded by urban development and was previously developed for governmental uses. There are no stream courses on or near the project site that could be used as a wildlife migration corridor. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated regarding movement of fish or wildlife species. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to migratory fish and wildlife beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.. (e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans No New Impact. There are six existing ornamental street trees at the southwest corner of the Central Parkway and Park Place intersection. One of these trees is located off -site and five are located within the project boundary. The one tree located off-site may need to be removed to accommodate a proposed sidewalk – details of which would be shown on the on-site / off-site improvement plan submittal. All the trees are relatively small (< 8-inch truck diameter) and would not be considered significant and in need of protection per the Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.56.090 – Tree Protection, which requires protection of certain species of trees which have a twenty-four (24) inch or greater diameter. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 32 The project site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans, but it is located within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) boundaries. The City adopted the EACCS as guidance for public infrastructure/capital improvement projects and uses the document to provide input on managing biological resources and conservation priorities during public project level planning and environmental permitting. For privately sponsored development projects such as the project, proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the document is not mandatory. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tree preservation, adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, March 7, 2012. City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. WRA, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment for the Zeiss Graphite Development Project, 2017. WRA, Inc. Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the Zeiss Graphite Development Project, 2017. Cultural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? ☒ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 33 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☒ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☒ Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and associated EIR. Several potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the Specific Plan area, several which were located near the former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center . None of these sites have been recorded on the project site. Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding policy associated with cultural resources that is relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 7.7.1.A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:  Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unidentified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than- significant level. These measures required that grading or construction activity be stopped if historic resources were discovered, until the significance of the find could be ascertained.  Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified historic resources to a less than-significant level (Impact 3.9IC). These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research for individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and development of preservation programs for significant resources. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 34  Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of unidentified historic resources to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.9/D). These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research. Cisco IS/MND The Cisco Systems IS/MND identifies one mitigation measure to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources. This includes:  Mitigation Measure 2 would address the possibility that undetected prehistoric archeological resources might exist on the property must be recognized and a contingency plan shall be developed in conformity with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 to handle discoveries during project construction. Should any prehistoric material be discovered, work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the project site until a qualified archeologist inspects the discovery, and, if necessary, implements plans for further evaluative testing and/or retrieval of endangered materials. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable cultural mitigation measure contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Historic resources No New Impact. As part of the federal regulatory permit application, a historic survey of the project site was conducted by Tom Origer & Associates. The results of the survey and archival research did not identify any historic resources. Tom Origer & Associates analysis is documented in a Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010, and is included as an appendix to this Initial Study. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to historic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b, c) Archaeological or paleontological resources No New Impact. The project site is located near the former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center site and development of the project could have an impact on subsurface archeological and/or paleontological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. If such resources are encountered, Mitigation Measure 2 from the Cisco Systems IS/MND would reduce any potential impacts to archeological or paleontological impacts to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to previous Mitigation Measure 2, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 35 supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (d) Human remains No New Impact. A remote possibility exists that human resources could be uncovered on the project site during construction activities. This would be a potentially significant impact. If such resources are encountered, Mitigation Measure 2 from the Cisco Systems IS/MND and applicable regulatory requirements would reduce any potential impacts to human remains impacts to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to previous Mitigation Measure 2 and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to human remains beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Tom Origer & Associates. Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010, 2017. Geology and Soils ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ☒ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☒ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 36 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ☒ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☒ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ☒ d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ☒ e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☒ Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landform, drainage and erosion and potential impacts to localized soil types. Seismic The project site is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault, and San Andreas Fault . The likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high. Per the report prepared by Lowney Associates for the Cisco Systems IS/MND, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State of California. A surface fault rupture study was prepared in the area in 1999 and referenced in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. No evidence of fault-related disruption to the project site soils was identified in this analysis. Based on this and other recent geotechnical information considered by Lowney Associates, a fault rupture on the project site is not anticipated. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 37 Site Soils The project site is underlain by stiff to very stiff and sandy clay to the maximum depth explored (80 feet below ground surface). Near surface soils are highly expansive. Test pits dug as part of the Cisco Systems IS/MND geotechnical investigation found scattered fill material, primarily gravelly clay, as well as abandoned utility lines and below-grade structures. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 9 to 20 feet from ground surface, although this may vary due to rainfall and other factors. Landform and Topography The project site is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador Valley. The project site is relatively flat. Drainage Existing drainage on the project site is generally sheet flow in a north to south direction. Regulatory Framework International Building Code The International Building Code (IBC) is the national model building code providing standardized requirements for construction. The IBC replaced earlier regional building codes (including the Uniform Building Code) in 2000 and established consistent construction guidelines for the nation. In 2006, the IBC was incorporated into the 2007 California Building Code, and currently applies to all structures being constructed in California. The national model codes are therefore incorporated into the building codes of local municipalities, such as the California Building Code discussed below. The California Building Code includes building design and construction criteria that take into consideration the State’s seismic conditions. California Building Code The California Building Code (also known as the “California Building Standards Code” or CBC) is promulgated under the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (Parts 1 through 12) and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. Local agencies must ensure the development complies with the guidelines contained beyond the CBC. Cities and counties can adopt additional building standards beyond the CBC. CBC Part 2, named in the California Building Code is based upon the 2012 International Building Code with necessary California amendments, and Part 11, named the California Green Building Standards Co de, and is also called the CalGreen Code. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and EDSP project . These include: City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 38  Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.  Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.  Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation of site- specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design.  Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope stability (IM 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-up geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslopes of unstable soils, removal/ reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage improvements.  Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas.  Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term construction- related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing several other specific erosion control measures.  Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long -term erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable geology and soils mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 39 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Seismic hazards No New Impact. The project site is subject to ground shaking caused by regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the next few decades, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed on the project site would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. Since the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Adherence to MM 3.6/1.0 through 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would ensure that new structures built on the project site would comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that ground shaking impacts would be less-than- significant. As part of the project, the project site is proposed to be graded to accommodate building pads, roads, parking areas and other development areas. Grading would also occur to improve and control site drainage. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-26.0 have been adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce potential geotechnical impacts to a level of less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical reports and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City requirements for grading. The proposed project would be required to be comply with the mitigation measures described in the Eastern Dublin EIR. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review i s required for this impact area. (b) Erosion/topsoil loss No New Impact. Impacts 3.6/K and L of the Eastern Dublin EIR note that an impact of constructing all the land uses identified in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/ would be an increase of erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Related Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 require that project Applicants prepare and implement interim erosion plans as part of grading permits. The proposed project would be required to be comply with the mitigation measures described in the Eastern Dublin EIR. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to erosion/topsoil loss beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 40 (c-d) Soil stability No New Impact. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.6/A of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Cisco project Applicant’s geotechnical consultant (Lowney Associates) prepared a geotechnical analysis of the project site. Based on the Lowney Associates report, the project site could support a similar type of building (multi-story office/R&D) as is proposed. Expansive soils were encountered on the project site, and therefore the recommendations made by the geologist to include special grading techniques and building foundation designs would continue to be required. With adherence to geotechnical recommendations by Lowney Associates as required under Mitigation Measure 3.6/A, potential lateral spreading and related soil hazards impacts to proposed structures would be less-than-significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to soil stability beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic No New Impact. The proposed development would be connected to a sanitary sewer system within streets adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impact is anticipated regarding septic tanks. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to waste water disposal beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Lowney Associates. Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin, CA, December 2000. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 41 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☒ b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☒ Environmental Setting The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 or Cisco Systems IS/MND in 2001. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND have been approved, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is not required to be analyzed under th e CEQA standards for supplemental or subsequent EIRs unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a)(3)). The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the approval of the prior CEQA documents for this project in 1993 and 2003. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid-2000s, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the Cisco Systems IS/MND in 2003. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 42 Regulatory Framework See above for applicable regulatory setting. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR or Cisco Systems IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 . Source(s) None. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☒ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ☒ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? ☒ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 43 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☒ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☒ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ☒ Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and currently contains no structures. It was previously used as a federal government installation, which may have involved the use or storage of potentially hazardous material. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Cisco project to assess the existence of hazardous materials from past uses of the property. The results of the ESA are discussed below. Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies associated with hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.1: Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate action during emergencies. Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.2: Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from contaminated sites. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR Hazards and hazardous materials were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 44 Cisco IS/MND The Cisco IS/MND identifies one mitigation measure to reduce anticipated impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. This includes:  Mitigation Measure 3 would address removal of asbestos wrapped piping. The mitigation measure requires all asbestos wrapped piping be remove d and deposited off Site 15A prior to the issuance of a building permit. Heavy petroleum hydrocarbons would also be required to be removed to the extent required by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable hazard and hazardous materials mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-c) Exposure to hazardous materials, upset/accident, near school No New Impacts. Existing Hazards The ESA indicated that project site was part of an Army Base and Naval Hospital during World War II. All of the buildings and related structures were demolished between the late 1940s and early 1950s. Facilities included barracks and two former diesel or gasoline fueling stations. The underground tanks and piping have been removed . However, some heavy petroleum hydrocarbons were discovered near one of the former fueling stations during the ESA investigation. In addition, approximately 1,200 feet of metal pipe wrapped with tar paper containing small amounts of asbestos were also discovered . Mitigation Measure 3 would reduce potential health hazard impacts to a less-than-significant level. A plume of groundwater with concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE) and other solvents was also detected beneath portions of Site 15A. The source of the PCE and solvent contamination is believed to be a former laundry facility which existed on Site 15B during the 1940s. A Health Risk Assessment prepared by Lowney Associates for the Cisco Systems IS/MND, dated November 2000 concluded that the PCE contaminated groundwater does not pose an unacceptable risk to future office, maintenance or construction workers as levels of contaminants are within the acceptable risk range established by the EPA National Contingency Plan. Operational Hazards Apart of standard hazardous materials (e.g. cleaning supplies) that are used in commercial and office uses, limited quantities of nitrogen would be stored and used on site to clean equipment (e.g. dust removal). Although nitrogen is non-toxic, when released into an enclosed space it can displace oxygen, and therefore presents an asphyxiation hazard . City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 45 A report with supporting floor plans would be provided as part of the project’s building permit to identify the maximum quantities of hazardous materials and t heir methods of protection in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), Section 414.1.3. Furthermore, the use of any hazardous materials would be regulated by federal, state and local agencies, including the Alameda County Fire Department. Other minor quantities of potentially hazardous materials would also be kept on the project site, including normal and customary amounts of lawn chemicals, solvents and similar items used for building and grounds maintenance. With adherence to applicable federal, state and local transport and use requirements, creation of a potentially hazardous condition would be less-than-significant. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 3 and existing regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from exposure to hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (d) Listed as a hazardous materials site No New Impact. As described in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that was prepared for the Cisco project to assess the existence of hazardous materials from past uses of the property, the project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the project site listed as a hazardous materials site beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (e-f) Proximity to a public or private airport No New Impact. The project site is located northwesterly of the Livermore Municipal Airport but outside of any safety or referral zone for this airport. No impacts are therefore anticipated regarding airport safety issues. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to airports beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (g) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No New Impact. Adequate emergency access has been provided via proposed driveways on adjoining streets. Due to the provision of adequate access, there would be no impact regarding emergency evacuation plans. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 46 There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires No New Impact. The project site is currently a vacant field and is subject to grassland fires during the dry portions of the year. However, the long-term plan for the area is for urbanization. Development of the project site and the surrounding area pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would include adding new water lines for firefighting purposes as well as new fire stations and personnel. No impacts are therefore anticipated. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to people or structures due to wildland fires beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Lowney Associates. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation for the Cisco Project, November 2000. Lowney Associates. Health Risk Assessment for the Cisco Systems Project, November 2000. Hydrology and Water Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ☒ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 47 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact the local ground water table level (for example, the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. ☒ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. ☒ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ☒ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☒ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ☒ h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ☒ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ☒ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☒ Environmental Setting The project site is generally flat and contains no riparian features. Seasonal wetlands are located on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine separate topographic depressions where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rainy season. The Project impacts on wetlands are addressed in the Biological Resources section. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 48 The project site is located within the Tassajara Creek watershed, which drains the eastern portion of Dublin. Site drainage is by sheet flow to the south, towards the I-580 freeway. Stormwater from the Eastern Dublin area generally flows to the south, under the I-580 freeway and into regional drainage facilities maintained by Alameda County Zone 7. The ultimate disposal of stormwater runoff is Alameda Creek that drains into San Francisco Bay. The City requires stormwater discharges to comply with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit requirements and establishes non-point source pollution control measures as required by federal and state law. Stormwater pollution prevention measures for new development projects, such as swales, retention ponds, erosion, and sediment control, are incorporated in the planning, design, construction, and operation of projects with the potential to create pollutants in stormwater runoff . The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (CWP) provides guidance to cities with respect to establishing programs to implement RWQCB requirements. The City of Dublin participates in the CWP and adheres to the regionally established guidelines. New development requirements are intended to include mechanisms into project proposals that prevent pollutants such as soil, petroleum products, pesticides, litter and construction materials from entering the storm drain system. The Zeiss Innovation Center provides 12,461 square feet of bio-retention to meet water quality requirements. In addition, the new development requirements mandate flow control measures to prevent an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the pre-project (existing) condition. The flow control requirements are imposed on commercial, industrial, and residential developments that create one acre or more of impervious surfaces. According to information contained in the Soils, Geology and Seismicity chapter of the Eastern Dublin EIR, no portion of the project site contains historic landslides or mudflows (See Figure 3.6-C). The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area per the current FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) Flood Map for the East Dublin area . Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies associated with hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 49 Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources that serve the community. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6: Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage water flow. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7: Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to maximize permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such means as bio-retention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and other water permeable surfaces. Require planter strips between the street and the sidewalk within the community, wherever practical and feasible. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems NPDES Permit (MRP), Order No. Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted November 19, 2015. The MRP is overseen by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Provision C.3 (New Development & Redevelopment) of the MRP addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that meet certain impervious surface area thresholds. Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design, source control, and low impact development stormwater treatment measures in development projects to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and prevent non-stormwater discharges. MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This MRP provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. Projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface area and are located within sensitive areas identified in t he Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map, developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and approved by the RWQCB, are required to incorporate hydromodification management controls into project design. Projects within the Community Plan area drain primarily to earthen channels and therefore must meet the hydromodification management requirements if they create City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 50 and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface and increase impervious surface area over pre-project conditions. This project would have to implement hydromodification management requirements and is planning to install flow control devices. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:  Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential.  Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0-50.0 reduced impacts related to loss of groundwater recharge area. These mitigation measures require adherence to management practices to protect and enhance water quality and directs the City to support on -going groundwater recharge efforts in the Central Basin.  Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 to 55.0 reduced impacts related to non-point source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of development projects and that the City should develop community-based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source pollution. These mitigation measures also require all development to meet the requirements of the City's Best Management Practices, the City's NPDES permit and the County's Urban Runoff Ocean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution. Cisco Systems IS/MND The Cisco Systems IS/MND contains one mitigation measure to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage:  Mitigation Measure 5 would require the project Applicant prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The mitigation measure requires the SWPPP to list Best Management Practices to reduce construction and post -construction activities to a less-than-significant level. Measures may include, but shall not be limited to revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing, use of biofilters (i.e. grassy swales) and other measures. The SWPPP shall conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 51 Specific development projects containing five acres or more are also required to obtain a Notice of lntent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to commencement of grading. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a, f) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements, degrade water quality No New Impact. Construction of improvements anticipated as part of the proposed project would necessitate grading and overcovering of the soil to construct building pads, utility connections and similar features. Proposed grading could contribute to increased soil erosion into creeks and other bodies of water, off the project site. This could be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5, proposed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND, would ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. The project would be required to comply with this mitigation measure. Compliance with provision C.3 and C.3g of the National Pollution Disposal Elimination System (NPDES) Permit would also minimize impacts from stormwater runoff. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 5 and applicable regulatory measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water quality or waste discharge requirements beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies No New Impact. Although the currently vacant site would be converted to an urban use, this impact has been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5/Z) and Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0 adopted as part of the EIR, which requires the project to adhere to applicable City policies and ordinances regarding water quality and to comply with the NPDES permit. With adherence to previous Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0 and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to groundwater supplies beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: erosion/siltation No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR acknowledges that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural drainage patterns on individual sites. In this instance, proposed changes would include grading and re -contouring much of the project site and filling surface drainage swales with underground pipes and culverts to accommodate storm City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 52 water runoff. However, the overall direction of stormwater flow in a southwesterly direction would not significantly change. According to the hydrological information prepared for the proposed project, the quantity and rate of stormwater flow projected is consistent with the City's master drainage plan for Eastern Dublin and complies with all regulatory requirements. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site. Consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND, including compliance with regulatory requirements, impacts would be less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to existing drainage patterns regarding erosion/siltation beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review ar e met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: flooding No New Impact. Construction of the project would not significantly change drainage patterns within the project site area. Existing surface drainage flows would be slightly altered due to anticipated site grading. As shown in Figure 7: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan – Phase 1, the storm drain improvements would be constructed to connect with existing drainage improvements within the Eastern Dublin area. In addition, the project site lies above the 100- year flood elevation so no significant site flooding is anticipated. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site. The Cisco Systems IS/MND determined that impacts to drainage patterns related to flooding would be considered less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to existing drainage patterns regarding flooding beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (e) Runoff exceed drainage capacity, or add pollution No New Impact. Construction of on-site improvements is anticipated to lead to greater quantities of stormwater runoff. Per the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (BKF, 2017), construction of the proposed project would create 352,306 square feet of impervious surface area. Total bio-retention required to meet Alameda County C.3 requirements (4% of effective impervious area) is 14,663 square feet. The project is providing 12,461 square feet of bio-retention. The Alameda County C.3 Technical Guidance Manual allows bio -retention areas to be sized using a combination flow and volume method. Providing ponding height allows for some reductions to the overall footprint area of the bio-retention planter. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 53 The Dublin Public Works Department determined that the amount of stormwater runoff anticipated to be generated from the project site for the project site would be consistent with the approved Master Drainage Plan for the Eastern Dublin area and the stormwater plan complies with all regulatory requirements. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site. Consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND, impacts would be less-than-significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to stormwater drainage capacity beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (g) Housing flood hazard No New Impact. The proposed project does not include a housing component, so there would be no impacts placing housing within a 100-year flood plain. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to flood hazard beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (h-i) 100-year flood hazard, dam/levee failure No New Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area nor within an area considered vulnerable to a dam or levee failure . The Cisco project was designed to be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Master Drainage Plan and comply with all regulatory requirements, and the proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site, and there would be no impacts regarding redirection of flood flows. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from flood hazard, dam/levee failure beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No New Impact. The project site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on the project site (see Figure 3.6-c of the Eastern Dublin EIR). There would be no impact with implementation of the proposed project . City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 54 There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from seiche, tsunami, or mudflow beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no fur ther environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. BKF Engineers. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, 2017. Land Use and Planning ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ☒ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☒ c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? ☒ Environmental Setting The project site is presently regulated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The General Plan and Specific Plan designates Site 15A for Campus Office. Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 55 Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan serves as a guide for the day-to-day physical development decisions that shape the social, economic, and environmental character of the City’s Planning Area. The General Plan’s policies are legally binding for new development and land use activities that occur within the Dublin City limits, which currently total 14.62 square miles. The City of Dublin General Plan is organized as follows: Land Use and Circulation Section: The Land Use and Circulation section includes the Land Use Element; Parks and Open Space Element; Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Element; and, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. The Schools, Public Lands, and Utilities Element is an optional Element. Housing Section: The Housing section includes the Housing Element, which is a separately bound document. Environmental Resources Management Section: The Environmental Resources Management section includes the Conservation Element; Seismic Safety and Safety Element; Noise Element; Water Resources Element; and Energy Conservation Element. The Water Resources and Energy Conservation Elements are optional Elements. Community Design and Sustainability Section: The Community Design and Sustainability section includes the Community Design and Sustainability Element, which is an optional Element. Economic Development Section: The Economic Development section includes the Economic Development Element, which is an optional Element. Campus Office Land Use Designation The General Plan designates the project site “Campus Office.” The General Plan establishes a Floor Area Ratio range of 0.25 to 0.80 and an employment density range of 220 to 490 square feet per employee. This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. Allowed uses include but are not limited to professional and administrative offices, administrative headquarters, research and development, business and commercial services, limited light manufacturing, and assembly and distribution activities. Ancillary uses that provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area are permitted. These uses include restaurants, gas stations, convenience shopping, copying services, branch banks, and other such services. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR or Cisco Systems IS/MND. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 56 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Physically divide an established community No New Impact. The project is vacant, located in an area planned for and developing with similar land uses to the project. Therefore, there would be no disruption of any established community and no impact would occur. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to an established community beyond those analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Conflict with general plan No New Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with environmental goals and policies contained in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. No impacts would result regarding consistency with applicable land use plans and policies. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to conflicts with the City of Dublin General Plan beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan No New Impact. No such plan has been adopted within the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to applicable habitat conservation plan(s) or natural community conservation plan(s) beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 57 Mineral Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ☒ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ☒ Environmental Setting The project site contains no known mineral resources. Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed project for this section. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR or Cisco Systems IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the project site, so no impacts would occur. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 58 Noise ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) 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? ☒ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ☒ c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☒ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☒ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☒ Environmental Setting Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project site include distant noise generated by vehicles passing the Eastern Dublin planning area on I-580, traffic sources on Dublin Boulevard and from aircraft flyovers. Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of the receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria provide the basis for decisions on City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 59 location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise mitigation requirements. The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies "normally acceptable" noise levels for non-residential uses as 70 dBA or less. Noise levels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable for new development of these types of land uses. Table 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+ Lodging Facilities 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 Office / Retail 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, 2012 Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains one mitigation measure to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project:  Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations and similar items. Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. The proposed project would be required to adhere to the applicable noise mitigation measure contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 60 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Exposure to or generation of noise exceeding standards No New Impact. Operation of the proposed project would be subject to the General Plan noise standard of 70 dBA or less. Residential uses are subject to more stringent noise standards. However, the proposed project does not include any residential uses . With adherence to the General Plan noise standards, operational impacts of the project related to increases in permanent noise levels would be less than significant . This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to exposure to or generation of noise exceeding standards beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise No New Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in long- term increases in groundborne vibration, since office uses would not generate groundborne vibration or noise. Therefore, this impact would be considered less-than-significant. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Permanently increasing ambient noise levels No New Impact. Impact 3.10/B identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR identified future exposure of housing within the Planning Area to future roadway noise as significant and unavoidable . Future traffic generated by the proposed project would contribute to this condition . However, the impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in permanent noise levels are within the scope of the impacts associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR and analyzed in the Cisco System IS/MND. The type and intensity of development proposed as part of the proposed project, and the noise generated and associated impacts on residential uses have been identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR; no new impacts would occur. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from permanently increased ambient noise levels beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. There fore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 61 (d) Substantial temporary noise increase No New Impact. Construction of the proposed office complex would increase short -term noise levels during the construction period for the project. Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would require individual project Applicants to prepare construction noise management plans to minimize noise to existing and future housing as well as adhere to construction hour limitations. Therefore, short-term construction noise impacts would be considered less-than-significant. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to required mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from a substantial temporary noise increase beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (e, f) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport No New Impact. The project site would not be affected by Livermore Municipal Airport because the airport is located approximately two miles southeasterly of the project site. The project site lies outside the airport referral area. No impacts are therefore anticipated. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND . There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public or private airports beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Population and Housing ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 62 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☒ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☒ Environmental Setting From a population of approximately 14,350 in 1982, the City of Dublin has grown to a resident population of 53,836 (per the California Department of Finance, 2016). The City is projected to have a total population of 76,000 at build out. Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed project for this section. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR or Cisco Systems IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Population growth No New Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the type and scale of development anticipated in the approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The potential to increase substantial population growth would be considered less -than-significant since the proposed project does not include any residential units and the office/commercial square footage is consistent with the densities allowed under the General Plan and Specific Plan. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population growth beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 63 (b-c) Housing and resident displacement No New Impact. The project site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore displace neither housing units or people. No impacts are therefore anticipated to population displacement. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to residential displacement beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin Web site. Accessed June 7, 2017. Available at http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/238/Community-and-Economic-Profile City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Public Services ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which cou ld cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ☒ b) Police protection? ☒ c) Schools? ☒ d) Parks? ☒ e) Other public facilities? ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 64 Environmental Setting Fire Protection Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, which contracts with the City of Dublin for fire suppression and emergency response, and includes three specialized response teams including a Hazardous Materials Unit, an Urban Search and Rescue Unit, and a Water Rescue Unit. The Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau provides plan review and inspections of new construction to ensure compliance with City codes and regulations. Police Protection Police and security protection is provided by Alameda County Sheriff Department, which contracts to the City of Dublin for patrol services, criminal investigations, and crime prevention. Dispatch services and some data processing functions are handled at Sheriff Office facilities in Oakland and San Leandro. Schools The Dublin Unified School District provides primary and secondary educational services to the City of Dublin. Parks The Parks and Community Services Department develops and implements parks related programs for the City of Dublin. Libraries The Alameda County Library Service provides library services for the City of Dublin. Maintenance Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Regulatory Framework Ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed project for this section are discussed in the below analysis. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 65  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as necessary to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 2.0: Coordinate with the City Police Department regarding the timing of annexation and proposed development, so that the Department can adequately plan for the necessary expansion of services to the area.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 4.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 5.0: As a part of the development approval process in Eastern Dublin, the City shall require the Police Department to review and respond to the planned development with respect to: a) Project design layout relating to visibility, security and safety, b) Project circulation system and access issues, c) Project implications for emergency response times. Prior to final approval of non-residential development and improvement plans, the City Police Department shall review the proposed use, layout, design, and other project features for police surveillance/access, security devices, such as alarms and lighting, visibility, and any other police issues or concerns.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 6.0: Time the construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demand to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first station would be sited and begin construction concurrent with initial development in the planning area.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up - front costs of capital fire improvements.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 8.0: Coordinate with Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) to identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations. The westernmost site in the Specific Plan area must be acquired prior to the approval of the first development plans in Eastern Dublin. Timing for acquisition of the subsequent sites will be determined by DRFA.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements of development approval.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/ open space interface. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 66  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 11.0: Integrate fire trails and fire breaks into the open space trail system. Meet fire district standards for access roads in these areas while minimizing environmental impacts.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area.  Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 13.0: The City shall consult with the DFRA to determine the number, location and timing of any additional fire station(s) needed to serve the GPA Increment area at such time when the GPA Increment area is proposed for annexation. Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Fire No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent daytime population on the project site. This impact from development on the proposed project site was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Features which would be incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements and to assist in reducing impacts would include installation of on-site fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers, installation of new fire hydrants and meeting minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0-13.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR address increased demand for fire and emergency services based on new development envisioned in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These mitigation measures relate to funding new fire facilities in eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. The proposed project is required to comply with applicable programs and standards implementing previously adopted mitigation measures . With such compliance and normal City fire protection requirements, impacts related to fire protection would be less-than-significant. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to fire services beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 67 (b) Police No New Impact. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected should the project be approved and constructed. This increase in calls for service would be off- set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from Dublin Police Services, including the Non-Residential Security Ordinance. The project Applicant would also be required to adhere to applicable Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0-5.0 set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These measures address establishing funding mechanisms for additional police personnel and facilities and require the inclusion of security provisions into individual development projects. With adherence to previously adopted mitigation measures and City regulatory requirements, impacts related to police protection would be less-than-significant. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to police services beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Schools No New Impact. The proposed project involves the development of an office complex . Since this is a non-residential land use, limited and less-than-significant impacts are anticipated on local schools. Consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND, the project Applicant would be required to pay fees required under State law to the Dublin Unified School District to off-set any indirect impacts that could result from secondary inducement of future employees moving into the District to work within the office complex. Payment of school impact fees is considered full mitigation of impacts under CEQA. Impacts to schools would therefore be less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to schools beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (d, e) Parks and other facilities No New Impact. Approval and construction of the project would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads, parks, and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands would be offset by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin and therefore impacts would be less than significant. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With compliance with regulatory requirements (including payment of fees), there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to parks and other facilities beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 68 for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. 2017. Fire Services and Prevention. Accessed June 7, 2017. Available at http://dublinca.gov/22/Fire-Services-Prevention. City of Dublin. 2017. Police Services. Accessed June 7, 2017. Available at http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/91/Police-Services. City of Dublin. 2017. Schools. Accessed June 7, 2017. Available at http://www.dublin.ca.gov/401/Schools. City of Dublin. 2017. Parks and Community Services. Accessed June 7, 2017. Available at http://www.dublin.ca.gov/90/Parks-Community-Services. City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ☒ b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☒ Environmental Setting The project site is currently vacant and contains no parks or other recreational amenities. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 69 Regulatory Framework Ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed project for this section are discussed in the below analysis. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains one applicable mitigation measure to reduce anticipated recreation impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. Th is includes:  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. Cisco IS/MND There are no additional mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable recreation mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration No New Impact. The proposed project would not result in new residences being constructed within the Eastern Dublin area. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact to neighborhood or regional park facilities due to limited use by employees. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area . (b) Propose or require new facilities that cause physical effect No New Impact. The proposed project does not include residential development . There would be a less than significant impact on City park or recreational facilities due to limited use by employees. The proposed project does include on-site recreational facilities for use by employees. Therefore, no impact would result due to construction of new neighborhood or regional park facilities caused by the proposed project. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts that would require new park facilities beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 70 no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Transportation/Traffic ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ☒ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ☒ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ☒ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? ☒ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☒ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 71 Environmental Setting Existing Transportation Network The project site is served by several regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector roadways, including: Interstate 580 Interstate 580 (I-580) is part of the interstate freeway system and extends in an east-west direction, from San Rafael in the west to Tracy in the east. I-580 forms the southern city boundary with four to five lanes in each direction. A high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane exists in the eastbound direction from Hacienda Drive to the base of the Altamont Pass to the east of Livermore. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/El Charro Road. Dougherty Road Dougherty Road is a north-south principal arterial roadway and a designated route of regional significance. The roadway continues south of I-580 into Pleasanton as Hopyard Road and connects to Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon to the north. Dougherty Road is generally a four- to six-lane facility, with additional capacity at intersections to accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles to and from I-580. Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. It is generally a four- to six-lane facility with a landscaped median. Dublin Boulevard is a designated route of regional significance. Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580, and extends from West Las Positas Boulevard in Pleasanton to Gleason Drive in Dublin. From West Las Positas Road to Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive is a designated principal arterial roadway that generally provides three travel lanes in each direction with additional capacity at intersections to accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles. North of Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive is a designated minor arterial with two to four travel lanes in each direction, with a landscaped median. Arnold Road Arnold Road is a north-south two-lane road parallel to and west of Hacienda Drive. It currently connects Gleason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard. Arnold Road / Dublin Boulevard is currently being re-designed to include a southbound right-turn lane. This improvement, which is anticipated to be constructed within the next two years, is not included in the analysis. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 72 Gleason Drive Gleason Drive is an east-west minor arterial roadway approximately half a mile north of Dublin Boulevard that connects Arnold Road in the west to Fallon Road in the east. It generally provides two travel lanes in each direction. Regulatory Framework Alameda County Transportation Commission The Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) does not have adopted thresholds of significance for Congestion Management Plan (CMP) land use analysis purposes . Past analyses within the City of Dublin have used the following criteria to assess roadway segment impacts: For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program (CMP) Network, the project would cause (a) the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F or (b) the volume-to-capacity ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate at LOS F without the project. Complete Streets Policy The City of Dublin is committed to creating and maintaining safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across roadways that serve all categories of users including bicyclists, emergency responders, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, persons with disabilities, seniors, and users/operators of public transportation. Complete Streets Principals adopted by the Dublin City Council by Resolution No. 199-12 on December 4, 2013 includes the following: 1. Complete Streets Serving All Users and Modes 2. Context Sensitivity 3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments 4. All Projects and Phases Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin area. With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Several impacts could not be reduced to a level of insignificance even with mitigations. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 73 These include: impacts to the I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B), impacts to the I-580 Freeway between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/ C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM 3.3/E), impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N). Cisco IS/MND The Cisco IS/MND contains the following mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traff ic impacts. Their status is indicated in italics.  Mitigation Measure 6: The project Applicant shall construct the following traffic and transportation improvements near the project: o Dublin/Arnold intersection: a separate right -turn lane for the southbound Arnold Road approach. o Hacienda/Dublin intersection: restripe the northbound Hacienda Drive approach to include a third left-turn lane. (Completed) o Right-turn lanes to all project driveways (Completed) o Cisco Systems Access/The Boulevard improvements, to include: Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane; Westbound approach: 1 right-turn lane; Southbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane. (Completed)  Mitigation Measure 7: Commerce One (Sybase project) is responsible for constructing the following traffic and transportation improvements near the Cisco project site. These improvements are also necessary for Cisco to gain access to their site. If these improvements are not constructed by Commerce One, Cisco shall be responsible for constructing the following traffic and transportation improvements: o Arnold Road/The Boulevard improvements, to include Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane; Westbound approach:2 left-turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane; Northbound approach: 1 left- turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, and 1 right turn lane; Southbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane. (Completed) o The Boulevard/Hacienda Drive improvements, to include: Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, 2 right-turn lanes; Westbound approach: 2 left-turn lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane; Northbound approach: 3 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes; 1 right-turn lane; Southbound approach:2 left- turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane. (Completed) o Roadway segment improvements on Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and The Boulevard (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each direction]; The Boulevard between Arnold Road and Commerce One Mid-Block Access (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in the westbound direction and three in the eastbound City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 74 direction]; The Boulevard between Commerce One Mid-Block Access and Hacienda Drive (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in each direction]. (Completed) Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-b) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, including congestion management plans No New Impact. The Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis (TCA, Kimley Horn, 2017) evaluated the proposed project’s conformance with the traffic impacts analyzed for the project site in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (see Appendix D: Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis). It concluded that the proposed project would generate less traffic compared to the project that was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Cisco Systems IS/MND. This is due in large part to the fact that the proposed project would accommodate 1,500 employees, as compared to the estimated 3,000 employees analyzed for the Cisco project. The project also includes a TDM program which will result in a 20% reduction in project vehicle trip generation. Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 in the Cisco IS/MND identified several roadway improvements. All of these improvements have been constructed except for constructing a new a separate right- turn lane for the southbound Arnold Road approach at the Dublin/Arnold intersection. The Boulevard project, located west of the project site, would be constructing the separate right- turn lane for the southbound Arnold Road approach at the Dublin/Arnold intersection. It is anticipated that this improvement would be constructed in 2018 in advance of the completion of Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center. According to the Traffic Consistency Analysis (TCA), all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) D or better during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project, for all scenarios analyzed, including cumulative conditions. Parking Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance complies with Title 24 of the California Code of Regul ations (City Municipal Code 8.76.060-D), which is designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act. According to the TCA, the proposed parking supply for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project exceeds the City’s parking requirements. The project is consistent with Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance and no new or substantially more severe significant parking impacts would occur with construction of the project Driveways The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan did not evaluate the project driveways on Park Place (formerly Sybase Drive); therefore, a separate analysis was performed for the Park Place driveways: located at Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Both intersections would operate at an acceptable condition with the addition of the project traffic and no additional improvements City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 75 are required. No new or substantially more severe impacts would occur with respect to project driveways. Cumulative Impacts The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed cumulative traffic from potential development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The City of Dublin has adopted a Traffic Impact Fee program which requires developers to contribute their 'fair-share' of sub-regional traffic improvements required for new development within the Eastern Dublin area. The project is within the scope and level of development and impacts assumed within the Specific Plan and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project site and area and is required to participate in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. With adherence to previous Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 and required payment of traffic impact fees, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to applicable transportation plans standards beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area . (c) Change in air traffic patterns No New Impact. The project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves office development and is located outside of the Livermore Airport general referral area . This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air traffic patterns beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. Increases in safety incidents may occur due to the volume of vehicles and pedestrians using nearby roads and other circulation features. The proposed on-site circulation and access for the project has been designed to adequately and safely distribute projected traffic flows per recommendations of the TCA as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. The City's Site Development Review Permit application ensures that the proposed development meets all City standards relating to safety hazards, design features, on-site circulation and access, and therefore no impacts are anticipated. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts due to a mobility design feature beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 76 (e) Result in inadequate emergency access No New Impact. The current need for emergency access is low, since there are no current residents or visitors on the project site. Construction of the proposed office complex on the project site would increase the need for emergency services and evacuation in the event of an emergency. If adequate access is not provided, excessive lengths of time would be needed for emergency vehicles to serve the new development. For both phases of development, access to the project site would be via two driveways: one full access driveway at Central Parkway/Park Place and one delivery and emergency vehicle only access driveway at Dublin Boulevard/Park Place. Park Place continues through an existing parking lot south of the primary entrance to the project site . Only deliveries and emergency vehicles would use the Dublin Boulevard/Park Place intersection and gain access to the project site via an easement. Since the proposed site development plan indicates that driveways meeting City design requirements would be provided, potential impacts relating to inadequate emergency access would be less-than-significant. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency access beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (f) Conflict with adopted alternative transportation plans No New Impact. The project includes on-site bicycle parking, a bus pick-up/drop-off for an employee bus shuttle, and pedestrian connections between proposed buildings and nearby streets. The project proposes to implement/construct the following items consistent with the City’s Complete Streets Policy: 1. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking spaces 2. ADA compliant sidewalks and curb ramps 3. Emergency Vehicle Access to the project site Therefore, there would be no impacts to pedestrian or bicycle access or alternative transportation plans, and impacts are less-than-significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to adopted alternative transportation plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 77 Source(s) City of Dublin. Complete Streets Principals adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin Resolution No. 199-12, December 4,2013. City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Kimley-Horn and Associates. Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis, 2017. Tribal Cultural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ☒ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ☒ Environmental Setting The topic of tribal cultural resources was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or Cisco Systems IS/MND. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and follow -up CEQA documents, CEQA has added this topic as a new section to the Appendix G Checklist in 2016 per Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014). The purpose of AB 52 is to include tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, ear ly in the project City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 78 planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. Cultural resources were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or Cisco Systems IS/MND. Regulatory Framework Per AB 52, to help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. That consultation must take place prior to the release of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report for a project. If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to trib al cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Previous CEQA Documents The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and associated EIR. Several potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the Specific Plan area, several which were located near the former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center. None of these sites have been recorded on the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources No New Impact. As part of the regulatory permit application assembled by WRA for the project Applicant, a historic survey of the project site was conducted by Tom Origer & Associates . The results of the survey and archival research did not identify any historic resources. Tom Origer & Associates’ analysis is documented in a Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010, and is included as an appendix to this Initial Study. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to historic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 No New Impact. The City contacted the tribal representative of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Ltr. from M Battaglia to R. Yonemura, dated 10/13/17). No response was received. There are no known significant Tribal Cultural Resources on the project site . If Native American artifacts are encountered during construction, work on the project shall cease until compl iance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on the project may commence under the guidance of an approved resource protection plan. The County Coroner is to be contacted if human remains are uncovered as required by State law. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 79 With adherence to required regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supp lemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Personal correspondence, Ltr. from M Battaglia, Associate Planner, City of Dublin to R. Yonemura, Chairman, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, dated 10/13/17 . Tom Origer & Associates. Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010, 2017. Utilities and Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ☒ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? ☒ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (V.4) ☒ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ☒ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it demand in addition to the provider’s existing ☒ City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 80 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No New Impact commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ☒ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☒ Environmental Setting The project site is served by the following service providers: Sewage treatment Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides wastewater collection and treatment service to the City of Dublin. DSRSD owns and operates the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in Pleasanton. Water supply and distribution DSRSD obtains its water supply from Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7. DSRSD also currently treats and distributes recycled water to water customers in its service area. Storm drainage The City of Dublin Public Works Department oversees municipal storm drainage within the Dublin City limits. Solid Waste Amador Valley Industries provides solid waste and recycling collection services on a contractual basis to commercial and residential customers in the City of Dublin. Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed project for this section. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 81 Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR Regarding water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant . These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 -31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-33.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact . Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact regarding extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project . Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility has been constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency and is operational . Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 82 impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. No additional analysis is needed. Cisco IS/MND There are no additional mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Wastewater treatment requirements No New Impact. The addition of wastewater flows from the proposed project would not cause the plant to exceed local, state, and federal water quality standards. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated . Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0 through 22.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR deals with wastewater treatment collection, treatment and disposal. With these adopted mitigation measures, potential wastewater impacts of the proposed project would be less-than-significant. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to wastewater treatment beyond what has been analyzed in in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Require construction of new facilities No New Impact. Existing water and sewer lines would need to be extended into the project site from the west. Such extensions have been planned as part of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project would be required to conform to adopted Mitigation Measures 2.5/24.0 through 43.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as applicable, regarding water service. A less-than-significant impacts would therefore result. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to wastewater facilities beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area . (c) Stormwater drainage No New Impact. As shown in Figure 7: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan – Phase 1, new on- site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of project construction . The City's Public Works Department has indicated that the proposed drainage system is acceptable and overall drainage from the project site would be accommodated by existing or planned local and regional drainage facilities. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site. The project would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 52.0 contained in the City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 83 Eastern Dublin EIR, as applicable, regarding drainage. A less-than-significant impact would therefore result. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to stormwater drainage facilities beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (d) Sufficient water supply No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water for domestic and irrigation purposes, similar to water use projections previously analyzed, as identified in the Cisco IS/MND. Water use for the proposed project would also be within the projections contained in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The increased water demand could be accommodated by DSRSD and Zone 7 facilities and long-term supplies. Recycled water would be supplied to the project site for irrigation by DSRSD. The project Applicant would be required to provide any local extensions and connections to nearby facilities. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that a less-than-significant impact would therefore result. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water supply beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. (e) Sufficient wastewater capacity No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for wastewater treatment. Presently, the project site is vacant and there is no demand for wastewater treatment services. DSRSD indicated for the Cisco project that the local wastewater treatment plant had adequate capacity to serve the project. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site, and impacts for the proposed project would be consistent with the determination in the Cisco IS/MND of a less-than-significant impact. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to wastewater capacity beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 84 (f) Adequate landfill No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effect . Information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can accommodate this project as it is consistent with overall buildout projections. Furthermore, the project would be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0 through 40.0, as applicable, contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR regarding solid waste disposal. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated regarding solid waste disposal. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to landfill capacity beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area . (g) Compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations No New impact. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects constructed under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated regarding compliance with statutes and regulations. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to solid waste statutes and regulations beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2017. “Solid Waste Information System.” Website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Default.htm. Accessed June 7, 2017. City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. “Fact Sheet.” Website: http://www.dsrsd.com /home/showdocument?id=811. Accessed June 7, 2017. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 85 Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No New Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ☒ b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ☒ c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☒ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or e ndangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New Impact. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in Biological Resources, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons identified in Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain any significant cultural resources, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 86 result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No New Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area .. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would allow for the conversion an existing vacant site to an urban use, specifically the construction of two low to mid-rise (3-story and 5-story) R&D buildings, a parking structure, surface parking, and related improvements, including landscaping. None of these uses or activities would result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document . Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Appendices Appendices The following appendices are available from the City Dublin upon request: A Biological Resources Assessment Report (WRA, 2017) B Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (WRA, 2017) C Rare Plant Survey Report (WRA 2017) D Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010 (TRA 2017) E Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis (Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2017) Zeiss Innovation Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Date February 2018 Project Name Zeiss Innovation Center PLPA-2017-00025 Project Location The project site is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road (APN 986-0014-010-00) in the City of Dublin, CA in Alameda County. Project Applicant Dr. Matthias Ismael Carl Zeiss, Inc. 5160 Hacienda Drive Dublin, CA 94568 State Clearinghouse Number 1991103064 Contact Martha Battaglia Associate Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: 925-833-6610 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov EXHIBIT B City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures (MMs) ado pted as part of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts. The MMRP identifies the following for each MM: Timing. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure that impact-related components of Project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, State, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. Responsible Party or Designated Representative. In each case, unless otherwise indicated, the Applicant is the Responsible Party for implementing the mitigation. The City or a Designated Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study and the Cisco Systems Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed MMRP will be kept on file at the City of Dublin Community Development Department. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures. By reference, included in this MMRP are the mitigation measures established in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (SCH# 91103064) that are applicable to the project. Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Aesthetics, Light & Glare Cisco Systems MND Mitigation Measure: MM1. The pole-mounted street lights installed shall be equipped with cut-off lenses and oriented down toward interior streets to minimize unwanted light and glare spill over, building security lighting and other lights shall be directed downward, and all exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare manufacture. Notes on construction plans; site inspection Prior to the first grading, building or other permit for development activities City of Dublin Biological Resources (Zeiss Innovation Center) MM BIO-1. Prior to the first site grading, building, or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) Retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre- construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl for the project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground- disturbing activities and the second completed within 48 hours of ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans; site inspection Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities; during construction City of Dublin City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. b) If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project Applicant shall implement the following avoidance or mitigation measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. a. Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through August 31; b. Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls; c. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over the area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial or agricultural development; d. Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on- site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection; e. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows; and f. Do not fumigate, use treated bait or City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g. sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). c) If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project Applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be implemented as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report. d) If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project Applicant shall consult with the CDFW to develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground- disturbing activities. City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM Bio-2. Prior to obtaining the first grading or building permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) Retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance with agency protocols. Impacts to special-status plant species shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible and habitat that supports special-status plant species shall be preserved. Rare plant surveys shall be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the proposed project would not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. b) Where surveys determine that special-status plant species are present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species (e.g. Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans; site inspection Prior to the first grading, building or other permit for development activities; during construction; Report to be submitted annually for 3 years following completion of project (if applicable) City of Dublin City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Congdon’s tarplant and/or California Dock Seed Stock) shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established in accordance with regulatory agency standards prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. c) Where avoidance of impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and California dock is not feasible, seed or plant propagules shall be collected from these species. Under direction of the qualified botanist, seed or plant propagules shall be harvested from at least 50% of plants within the area of impact. d) The project Applicant shall follow the mitigation guidelines as established in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; 2010), including: a. An adequate floristic survey of the site shall have been completed within the preceding 3 years (under normal rainfall and conditions), and spatially explicit data on the extent of the focal plant population shall be available. City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial b. To mitigate impacts on a plant population, a parcel where the focal plant species occurs may be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (PLA-2). c. An assessment of the plant population on both the impact site and the proposed mitigation site shall be conducted by a qualified botanist. The mitigation population shall be equivalent in terms of population size and vigor than the population affected at the project site. d. As identified in Table 3-12 of the EACCS, mitigation for focal plant species within the Livermore Valley Mitigation Area is 5:1 and refers to the size of the population that is affected or protected. e) The qualified botanist shall demonstrate that the harvested seeds have been planted and are surviving at a rate pursuant to EACCS. The Applicant will submit an annual monitoring report to the City of Dublin, which details monitoring methods and maintenance for successful establishment, and reporting protocols. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the City of Dublin prior to the start of construction activities. Contingency measures should be included in the plan if it appears the success criterion will not be met City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial after three years. Monitoring reports shall include photo-documentation, planting specifications, a site layout map, descriptions of materials used, and justification for any deviations from the monitoring plan. MM BIO-3. Prior to the first grading, building, or other permit for development activities, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during nesting season (February 1 – August 31), the project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distances would vary based on species and conditions at the project site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 – January 31). Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to first grading building, or other permit for development activities City of Dublin MM BIO-4. Prior to the first site grading or building permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to first site grading or building permit City of Dublin City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial compliance with the following: a) Project Applicant shall obtain all required resource agency permits and shall prepare and obtain resource agency approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net loss of wetland and water habitats. b) The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or waters, which may include buying credits at a mitigation bank approved by regulatory agencies. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland and mitigation monitoring plan shall include the following: a. Descriptions of wetland types, and their expected functions and values; b. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies; c. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial created or restored; d. An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with initiation of construction; and e. A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e. dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). Cultural Resources Cisco Systems MND Mitigation Measure: MM2. In the event that any prehistoric material is discovered, work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the project site until a qualified archeologist inspects the discovery, and, if necessary, implements plans for further evaluation testing and/or retrieval of endangered materials. Site Inspection During construction City of Dublin Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cisco Systems MND Mitigation Measure: MM3. Prior to the first grading, building, or other permit for development activities, the Applicant shall remove all asbestos wrapped piping from the site. Heavy Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to first site grading or building permit City of Dublin City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed from the site to the extent required by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Hydrology & Water Quality Cisco Systems MND Mitigation Measure: MM5. The project Applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a list of the Best Management Practices to reduce construction and post-construction activities to a less-than-significant level. Measures may include, but shall not be limited to revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing, use of biofilters (i.e. grassy swales) and other measures. The SWPPP shall conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Submittal of documentation; notes on construction plans Prior to issuance of grading permit. City of Dublin Transportation/Traffic Cisco Systems MND Mitigation Measure: MM6. The project Applicant shall construct the following traffic and transportation improvements near the project: a) Dublin/Arnold intersection: A separate right- turn lane for the southbound Arnold Road approach. (The Boulevard project’s obligation, see Dublin Crossings MMRP) N/A N/A N/A City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial b) Hacienda/Dublin intersection: Restripe the northbound Hacienda Drive approach to include a third left-turn lane. (Completed) c) Right-turn lanes to all project driveways. (Completed) d) Cisco Systems Access/The Boulevard improvements, to include: Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane; Westbound approach: 1 right- turn lane; Southbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane. (Completed) Cisco Systems MND Mitigation Measure: MM7. Commerce One (Sybase project) is responsible for constructing the following traffic and transportation improvements near the Cisco project site. These improvements are also necessary for Cisco to gain access to their site. If these improvements are not constructed by Commerce One, Cisco shall be responsible for constructing the following traffic and transportation improvements: a) Arnold Road/The Boulevard Improvements, to include Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane; Westbound approach:2 left-turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane; Northbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, and 1 right turn lane; Southbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane. (Completed) N/A N/A N/A City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial b) The Boulevard/Hacienda Drive improvements to include: Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, 2 right-turn lanes; Westbound approach: 2 left-turn lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane; Northbound approach:3 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes; 1 right-turn lane; Southbound approach:2 left- turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane. (Completed) c) Roadway segment improvements on Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and the Boulevard (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each direction]; The Boulevard between Arnold Road and Commerce One Mid-Block Access (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in the westbound direction and three in the eastbound direction]; The Boulevard between Commerce One Mid-Block Access and Hacienda Drive (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in each direction]. (Completed) Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental IS/MND Response to Comments February 28, 2018 Planning Application Number: PLPA‐2017‐00025 City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 1 2/28/2018 Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental IS/MND Response to Comments PLPA‐2017‐00025 Introduction The proposed project includes development of a 433,090‐square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements to be built in two phases. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 11.36‐acre site, Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1, which includes a 208,650‐square foot research and development building, surface parking and related site improvements and a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project site is located at the Northeast corner of Dublin Blvd. & Arnold Road (APN: 986‐ 0014‐010‐00). The City circulated a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (Supplemental MND) for review from December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018. CEQA does not require the City to prepare written responses to comments received on a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City has nevertheless prepared these written responses. Corrections and Modifications The response to comments also contain clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the draft Supplemental MND. None of the clarifications or modifications in this document requires “substantial revision” of the Supplemental MND as defined in the Guidelines, therefore the City has determined that no recirculation is required. The following minor changes and modifications are hereby made to the Supplemental MND. Changes are shown in underline and strikeout. Revised Mitigation Measure BIO‐1. This measure is hereby amended by reference to read as follows: MM BIO‐1. Prior to the first site grading, building, or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 2 2/28/2018 a) Retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre‐construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl for the project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground‐disturbing activities and the second completed within 48 hours of ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. b) If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground‐disturbing activities, the project Applicant shall implement the following avoidance or mitigation measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. a. Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through August 31; b. Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non‐breeding season by migratory or non‐migratory resident burrowing owls; c. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over the area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial or agricultural development; d. Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on‐site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection; e. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows; and f. Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g. sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). c) If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground‐ disturbing activities, the project Applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be implemented as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report. d) If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project Applicant shall consult with the CDFW to and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground‐disturbing activities. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 3 2/28/2018 Revised Mitigation Measure BIO‐4. This measure is hereby amended by reference to read as follows: MM BIO‐4. Prior to the first site grading or building permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: a) Project Applicant shall obtain all required resource agency permits and shall prepare and obtain resource agency approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no‐net loss of wetland and water habitats. b) The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or waters, which may include buying credits at a mitigation bank approved by regulatory agencies. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). The wetland and mitigation monitoring plan shall include the following: a. Descriptions of wetland types, and their expected functions and values; b. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies; c. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored; d. An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with initiation of construction; and e. A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e. dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 4 2/28/2018 Comments Received for Supplemental MND/Initial Study The following comment letters were received by the City during the comment period (December 13, 2017 to January 30, 2018) and after the close of the public comment period: Letter # Person/Agency Date 1 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 January 9, 2018 2 CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) January 11, 2018 3 Dublin San Ramon Services District January 12, 2018 4 California Native Plant Society January 30, 2018 5 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (on behalf of Dublin Residents for Responsible Development) February 13, 2018 6 Lozeau Drury (on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 304) February 13, 2018 Comment Letter No. 1: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 The project has completed C3 Worksheets for each drainage area and included this in the Stormwater Management Plan. The bioretention for drainage area #1 has an area of 12,676 square feet, and the volume of treated runoff is 16,392 cubic feet. The bioretention for drainage area #2 has an area of 1,618 square feet, and the volume of treated runoff is 2,092 cubic feet. The bio‐retention areas are required to treat the initial 0.2‐inch/hour storm events, with larger events bypassing the treatment media through overflow drains. The overflow drains are set 6” above the bioretention planter soil level to allow for 6” of ponding. This additional ponding is accounted for in the sizing worksheets and allows the footprint of the planter to be reduced from the standard 4% rule. After captured runoff has migrated through the treatment soil, an underdrain system within the planter allows the clean treated water to then be diverted to the City’s storm drain system. The bioretention planters are the primary BMP, there is no additional (secondary) treatment provided or required. Zone 7 fees will be collected prior to issuance of a building permit for site improvements. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 5 2/28/2018 Comment Letter No. 2: CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Parking Clarification As noted in the project description of the Supplemental MND, at build‐out there will be a total of 1,396 spaces (1,229 spaces in the garage and 167 surface parking spaces). There will not be 2,059 spaces; therefore, no modification is necessary. Parking Provided The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of a three‐ story, 208,650 gross square feet Research and Development (R&D) building and 664 surface parking spaces. Phase 2 would consist of an additional five‐story, 224,440 gross square feet R&D building with 167 surface parking spaces and a five story, 1,229‐space parking garage for a total of 1,396 parking spaces. Caltrans has requested that the Applicant provide less parking. The Applicant is required to meet City standards. There are no adverse impacts from the amount of parking provided by the project. Parking is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA and is not required to be addressed in the Supplemental MND. Transportation Demand Management To reduce transportation impacts associated with construction of the project, a set of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures will be implemented by the Applicant to reduce potential impacts on the City’s road network. The TDM measures are programs and solutions that will be implemented by the Applicant to reduce drive alone trips to and from the site. Among other things the Applicant has committed to operating a shuttle to and from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. A TDM goal of 20% has been determined for the project. The TDM Plan is subject to review and approval by the City’s Traffic Engineer. The implementation of the TDM measures and the reduction of vehicle trips will be monitored by the City through the approval of a yearly TDM report. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the Applicant meets the 20% reduction goal. If the 20% reduction is not met, the Applicant will be required to add additional measures. However, additional TDM beyond those necessary to meet the 20% reduction in vehicle trips is not required to address traffic impacts from the project under CEQA. Multi‐modal options are included in the project. The project site is located approximately a half a mile from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. From the BART station, employees have the option to walk to the project site using existing sidewalks, bike using existing bike lanes or take a shuttle, which will be provided by Zeiss. Pedestrian circulation has been linked together with sidewalks and public streets. Finally, the project provides both long‐term and short‐term bicycle parking on the site. Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) In response to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) have updated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to include new transportation‐related evaluation metrics. Draft guidelines were developed in August 2014, with updated draft City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 6 2/28/2018 guidelines prepared January 2016, which incorporated public comments from the August 2014 guidelines. OPR released final proposed Guidelines on November 27, 2017. The final proposed Guidelines include a new Section 15064.3 on VMT analysis and thresholds. OPR also released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. New Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that they do not take effect until January 1, 2020 unless the lead agency adopts them earlier. Neither the City of Dublin nor the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) has established any standards or thresholds on VMT. Therefore, the new guidelines have not yet been adopted and are not in effect. Since there are no standards in effect on VMT analysis, no determination on the significance of VMT impacts was made in the Supplemental MND since none is legally required. Comment Letter No. 3: Dublin San Ramon Services District As noted in the comment letter by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), the Supplemental MND does not affect DSRSD’s relationship with the project and DSRSD has no comments on the Supplemental MND. Comment Letter No. 4: California Native Plant Society WRA has provided a response to the comments by the California Native Plant Society. WRA is the Applicant’s biologist and prepared the Biological Resource Assessment, the Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Rare Plant Survey Report for the project that were included as appendices to the Supplemental MND. The City has reviewed the response prepared by WRA and is in agreement with the response. Comment Letter No. 5: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardoza Main letter is a summary of detailed technical comments as described in Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A – Ltr. from SWAPE Comment 5‐1: Failure to Adequality Evaluate Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions The commenter notes that the Initial Study did not quantify the amount of anticipated air pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, and therefore was not able to compare project‐related air pollutant emissions to the significance thresholds promulgated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Using the emissions modeling software, CalEEMod 2016.3.1, the commenter estimated air pollutant emissions resultant of the proposed project and provided these projections in comparison to BAAQMD significance thresholds for air pollutants. The commenter provided air pollutant projections are shown to surpass BAAQMD significance thresholds, prompting the commenter to conclude that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality‐ related impacts requiring the imposition of air pollutant‐reducing mitigation measures to the maximum extent feasible. The City is not required to conduct a new quantified assessment of anticipated air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project under the CEQA standards for supplemental City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 7 2/28/2018 environmental review. As stated on page three of the Initial Study (and discussed throughout the Initial Study), the urban development of the project site has been evaluated under two prior CEQA documents ‐ the Eastern Dublin EIR certified in 1993 (and subsequent addenda in May 1993 and August 1994) as well as the IS/MND approved for the proposed Cisco Systems project in 2003. The Initial Study shows that there are no substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR that would result in new or more severe air quality impacts than identified in the prior CEQA documents. The proposed land uses on the project site is not a substantial change from the Cisco Systems IS/MND analysis and would not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. The comment also states that the project bases its conclusion on “analyses for other projects proposed twenty‐five and fifteen years ago.” The nature of supplemental documents in CEQA is to rely on previous analyses and is fully allowed under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 use the terms “substantial” and “major” change. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 defines a substantial change as one that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. As described above and in the Initial Study, the project is not a substantial change from the Cisco Systems IS/MND analysis and would not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. In addition, there is no CEQA rule that places an “expiration date” on certified CEQA documents. The issue is whether there are new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously disclosed. Furthermore, due to increasingly restrictive emissions controls, technological improvements, and fleet turnover, emissions associated with construction and operations of a project in today’s time frame would be lower than what was analyzed twenty‐five and fifteen years ago. Comment 5‐2: Unsubstantiated Operational Daily Trip Rate The Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation 9th Edition provides engineers the option of using either the average trip rate or the best fit curve equation. As noted in footnotes 1 and 2 of Table 3: Trip Generation, the ITE equation was used to estimate trip generation for the project. The equation was appropriate for use due to a high statistical correlation of the data. The rate was calculated by dividing the equation estimated trips by the project size. The equation method results in a slightly lower net daily trip generation by approximately 97 trips. This is equivalent to approximately one vehicle every eight minutes, which is insignificant and would not change the conclusions of the analysis. Traffic flow varies more by traffic signal cycles than the additional 97 daily trips in question. Comment 5‐3: Updated Analysis Indicates Significant Construction Emissions See response to comment 5‐1, above. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 8 2/28/2018 Additionally, the project has undergone CEQA review utilizing an Initial Study/Supplemental MND pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The Initial Study/ Supplemental MND tiers off the Cisco Systems IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR and demonstrates that there are no substantial changes to the impacts and mitigation identified in these documents. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use updated emission modeling. The previously identified mitigation measures are required to be applied to the proposed project. These mitigation measures include implementing dust control practices, on‐ site equipment emissions controls, transportation control plans, energy conservation practices, and recycling. As described in the Initial Study, all of the previously identified mitigation measures are applicable to the project. Comment 5‐4: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated Health risk from diesel particulate matter is not new information that could not have been know at the time of the approval of the Cisco Systems IS/MND in 2003. Therefore, analysis of this impact is not required under CEQA supplemental review standards. The health risk of vehicle diesel exhaust was known in 2002. The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to residences living close to freeways. (See, studies cited in CARB's 2005 "Air Quality and Land Use Handbook"). The 1999 Guidelines encourage Lead Agencies to address impacts to sensitive receptors to exposure of high levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as a high‐volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p. 47). Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in effect in 2002 also listed exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants as a potentially significant impact. This significance threshold was included in the Cisco IS/MND. Since potential health impacts due to exposure to diesel exhaust was known or could have been known in 2002, then this is not new information that requires the preparation of a supplemental EIR. (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 1301.). The Appellants cannot challenge the sufficiency of the analysis of toxic air contaminants in the already approved MND under the supplemental review standards. (ALARM v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 CA4th 1773.) The recently updated information from BAAQMD on health impacts of diesel exhaust and the BAAQMD CEQA significance standards do not trigger the requirement for supplemental environmental review under CEQA. (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 1301.). Even if an analysis was required, the impact would be less‐than‐significant. As the commenter notes, the closest sensitive receptors would be located 263 meters (863 feet) away from the project site. The BAAQMD Draft Construction Health Risk Screening Tables (2010) provide minimum distances required between the fence line of a construction site and a nearby sensitive receptor to conservatively ensure that that cancer and non‐cancer risks associated with the project are less‐than‐significant per the BAAQMD proposed significance thresholds. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 9 2/28/2018 Based on the BAAQMD Construction Health Risk Screening Tables, construction of a 500,000‐ square foot industrial building (conservatively rounded up for screening purposes) would require a buffer distance of 250 meters to be below DPM cancer risk thresholds. PM2.5 and acute risk buffer distances would range from 9 to 175 meters. As the closest receptors would be 263 meters away, exceedances of the BAAQMD thresholds would not occur. Additionally, it should be noted that the project proposes to be constructed in two phases. Construction of smaller buildings would have lower emissions and the buffer distances would be even smaller. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hotspots Program Guidance Manual (2015) identifies considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (such as a construction project). The use of diesel‐powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer‐term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Furthermore, construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy‐duty construction equipment to no more than 5 minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel particulate matter emissions. Emissions from construction equipment are regulated by both the U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The emission standards for new engines vary according to the rated horsepower of the engine and model year of the equipment, and are set forth in a series of tiers (1‐4), with each tier becoming progressively cleaner for either nitrogen oxides (NOX) and/or PM emissions. In addition, CARB’s In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation (Off‐Road rule) generally applies to all self‐propelled off‐road diesel vehicles over 25 horsepower used in California. The Off‐Road rule requires off‐road fleet owners subject to the rule to meet fleet wide emission limits based on the size of their fleet and to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy, or VDECS. Compliance dates range from 2014 for larger fleets to 2019 for the smallest fleets. The overall purpose of the Off‐Road rule is to encourage turnover of older, higher‐emitting equipment to cleaner, lower‐emitting equipment in construction fleets. This turnover will help to further reduce emissions of NOX and fine PM within California communities. Furthermore, as discussed above and in the project Initial Study, previously identified mitigation measures are required to be applied to the proposed project. These mitigation measures include implementing dust control practices, on‐site equipment emissions controls, transportation control plans, energy conservation practices, and recycling. Finally, the proposed project is a research & development complex, which is not considered a significant source of toxic air contaminants, and therefore there would be no significant operational impacts. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 10 2/28/2018 Comment Letter 5‐5: Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions See response to Comment 5‐1 and 5‐3, above. Comment Letter 5‐6: Failure to Adequately Evaluate the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts/Compliance As discussed in detail in the Supplemental MND, GHG impacts are not new information that could not have been known at the time the Cisco IS/MND was approved in 2003. Therefore, analysis of this impact is not required under CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development [CREED] v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 531; Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 1301.) Information on the effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City approved the Cisco Systems IS/MND. (Id.) Accordingly, the City finds that GHG impacts and climate change are not “new information” under CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review. Comment 5‐7: Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with Executive Order S‐30‐15 and Senate Bill 32 See response to Comment 5‐6, above. Exhibit B: Ltr. from Scott Cashen, Independent Biological Resources Consultant Comment 5‐8: Existing Conditions – Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp A biological constraints site visit was conducted on April 12, 2017 and did not identify any special status invertebrates within the wetlands on site at that time. Although there are wetlands on the site, they drain quickly and do not support a hydroperiod sufficient to support vernal pool branchiopods, including vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella. The site does not contain hardpan soils which hold water in the wetlands for the six weeks necessary for these species to complete their life cycle. WRA conducted a reconnaissance site visit on April 12, 2017, shortly after a rainstorm, and the wetlands contained several inches of water. By the time of the rare plant survey on May 9, 2017, no water remained in these features and no additional precipitation had occurred on the site in that time. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the wetlands on the project site are vernal pools or that they support vernal pool habitat. Comment 5‐9: Existing Conditions – Burrowing Owl Per the 2017 Zeiss Burrowing Owl Report and Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), a survey was conducted within the breeding season to investigate the site’s potential for burrowing owl. Vegetation on the site was characterized as it relates to burrowing owl habitation, including height and relative distribution on the site. The 2017 survey was conducted by Patricia Valcarcel, who has over 10 years of experience conducting burrowing owl surveys following CA Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines, and has worked closely with CDFW on other projects that have impacted burrowing owl habitat, including in the Tri‐Valley Area. The April City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 11 2/28/2018 12, 2017 visit followed CDFW burrowing owl survey protocol and was sufficient to determine the potential for owls to occur on the site. No owls or signs of owl were identified. The CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation provides guidelines and recommendations for burrowing owl survey protocols and mitigations, including buffer size. Detection surveys are not required to assess habitat and potential for burrowing owl. The two pre‐construction surveys and other avoidance measures detailed in MM Bio‐1 are sufficient to detect owls prior to construction and avoid take of owls if found on the site in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report. Additionally, if avoidance of occupied burrows and known burrow habitat is not possible, MM Bio‐1 states that a mitigation plan will be reviewed by CDFW prior to implementation. Therefore, the CDFW will approve of suitable mitigation and avoidance measures prior to site disturbance. Comment 5‐10: Existing Conditions – Wetland Function and Values CEQA requires an analysis of environmental impacts of a project at the earliest meaningful stage of the project and its review. Nonetheless, details regarding the effects of project implementation may not be available at that time, so CEQA allows for future studies and compliance with agency requirements to validate the findings made in the initial assessment. Numerous published cases have allowed for mitigation measures to be deferred over time provided that:  Significant impact determinations and formulation of mitigation measures occurs before project approval.  Where the agency has evaluated significant impacts, and identified measures that will mitigate them, the agency is not required to commit to any particular identified mitigation measure as long as it commits to mitigate the impacts.  How the identified mitigation measures can rely on regulatory agency approval.  In certain circumstances, the agency can permissibly articulate specific performance criteria and commit to ultimately devising mitigation measures that will satisfy those performance criteria. The Supplemental MND described the existing site conditions based on an updated evaluation of seasonal wetlands and their current condition as described in the technical study, Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (WRA July 2017). The Supplemental MND describes the wetland features delineated on the project site and thoroughly evaluates the project’s impacts to these features on pages 38‐39, and in Appendix B. Consequently, the Supplemental MND does not defer evaluation of functions and values to a future wetland mitigation plan, because the impacts to seasonal wetlands have been fully characterized. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 12 2/28/2018 The Supplemental MND then defines mitigation measures to achieve a “no net loss” standard in accordance with the USACE and USEPA’s Final Mitigation Rule. One of the mitigation measures requires the preparation of a wetland mitigation plan which is required to secure a Section 404 Permit and to obtain Section 401 water quality certification. The wetland mitigation plan describes how the compensatory wetlands mitigation will be achieved through a combination of on‐site preservation, enhancement and/or the purchase of off‐site mitigation. The mitigation measure requires a wetland mitigation plan that meets specified performance criterion and standards. Therefore, the impact analysis and mitigation measures comply with CEQA. Comment 5‐11: Impacts – Burrowing Owl There is no substantial evidence that development of the project site, an infill area, would cause a substantial reduction in burrowing owl habitat or impact the Camp Parks breeding colony. The commenter notes that previous development within the Camp Parks area was not effectively mitigated. On the contrary, development impacts within the Camp Parks area were fully mitigated, providing approximately 313 acres of burrowing owl habitat mitigation within the Tri‐Valley area. The acreage is comprised of conservation easements and mitigation bank credits. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on this species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. Breeding owls were not detected during previous surveys on the project area during burrowing owl breeding season (see e.g. Zeiss Burrowing Owl Report 2017). The two pre‐construction surveys and other avoidance measures detailed in MM Bio‐1 are sufficient to detect owls prior to construction and avoid take of owls if found on the site in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report. Additionally, if avoidance of occupied burrows and known burrow habitat is not possible, MM Bio‐1 states that a specified mitigation plan is required and will be reviewed by CDFW prior to implementation. Therefore, the CDFW will approve of suitable mitigation and avoidance measures prior to site disturbance. Comment 5‐12: Impacts – Avian Collisions Any potential impact due to bird collisions with the project buildings are not required to be analyzed under CEQA standards for supplemental environmental review. Impacts on bird due to collisions with glass buildings is not new information that could not have been known at the time the Cisco IS/MND was approved in 2003. Many EIRs at that time analyzed this issue. Even though analysis of the impact is not required under CEQA, there is no substantial evidence that the project will result in a significant impact. The exterior façade of the proposed project incorporates aluminum panels, low‐glare translucent glass and a series of vertical fins. These rotatable fins provide visual texture to the surface, while also serving to provide shade as part of an automated energy efficient climate control system. Bird strikes on buildings most commonly occur when the building’s glass is highly reflective, resulting in a mirror‐like effect where birds perceive a continuation of the sky. The proposed use of translucent, low reflectivity glass (consistent with MM 1 in the Cisco IS/MND) and the other building features described above, will reduce the occurrence of bird strikes. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 13 2/28/2018 The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on birds due to building collisions and does not refute the information in the above response. Comment 5‐13: Impacts – Wetlands and Special‐Status Plants As described in MM Bio‐2, Congdon’s tarplant within the project area will be avoided, where possible. Mitigation for impacted individuals will be consistent with the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; 2010), which outlines a 5:1 mitigation ratio based on impacted population size (EACCS table 3‐12). Under EACCS, mitigation for the loss of focal species can be accomplished by protecting occupied habitat, or creating or restoring suitable habitat. Compliance with the mitigation measure, including the confirmation of an off‐site tarplant mitigation location, will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Additionally, MM Bio‐2 describes criteria that state the mitigation population shall be equivalent in terms of population size and vigor as the affected population. Because California dock is not listed as a focal species under EACCS or a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) ranked rare plant, avoidance measures and a 5:1 mitigation ratio for impacted plants is sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. Comment 5‐14: Mitigation – Performance Standards The proposed project would comply with the mitigation measures listed in the EDSP EIR, Cisco IS/MND and the Zeiss IS/Supplemental MND. These three documents provide performance standards and mitigation plan requirements which will be approved by the City for ground‐ disturbing activities. Moreover, the project proposes to mitigate to a “no net loss” standard to offset project impacts to wetlands and waters in accordance with applicable State and Federal permitting standards. This means that potential impacts will be fully offset so that the impact is mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level under the 404 permit and Section 401 certification requirements. Comment 5‐15: Mitigation – Burrowing Owl (Surveys) See response to Comment 5‐9. Comment 5‐16: Mitigation – Burrowing Owl (Buffers) Response to Comment 5‐9. Additionally, the 250‐foot buffer distance presented in MM Bio‐3 is intended for non‐special status nesting raptors, which does not include burrowing owl. If a nesting buffer for burrowing owl is required, it will be determined based on the 2012 Staff Report and in consultation with CDFW. Comment 5‐17: Mitigation – Burrowing Owl (Mitigation Plan) See response to Comment 5‐14. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 14 2/28/2018 Comment 5‐18: Mitigation – Special Status Plants (regarding Congdon’s tarplant) See response to Comment 5‐13. Comment 5‐19: Mitigation – Wetlands Mitigation Measure Bio‐4 establishes a mitigation ratio that ensures no‐net‐loss of wetlands in accordance with the USACE Mitigation Rule. The USACE and U.S. EPA define compensatory mitigation to include preservation, creation, restoration and enhancement (see e.g., page 19689). The proposed project is proposing a combination of compensatory mitigation measures in accordance with the Mitigation Rule to achieve a no net loss standard. Comment 5‐20: Mitigation – Mitigation Strategy See response to Comment 5‐19. Comment Letter No. 6: Lozeau Drury Comment 6‐1: Impacts on Special Status Species – Burrowing owl See response to comment 5‐9. Comment 6‐2: Impacts on Special Status Species –Ferruginous hawk Ferruginous hawks do not nest in this region. This species may incidentally forage in the area, but is not likely to frequent or inhabit the area based on a site‐specific survey. Additionally, the project site is relatively small and surrounded by development, making it less likely to be foraging habitat. Furthermore, foraging habitat for this species is not specifically protected by law, and the development of the site would not constitute a substantial adverse effect on the species locally or as a whole. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on this species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. Comment 6‐3: Impacts on Special Status Species – Northern harrier, White‐tailed kite, California horned lark, Yellow‐billed magpie, Red‐tailed hawk These species may incidentally forage on the site, but are not likely to frequent or inhabit the project site. Additionally, the project site is relatively small and surrounded by development, making it less likely to be foraging habitat. Furthermore, foraging habitat for this species is not specifically protected by law, and the development of the site will not constitute a substantial adverse effect on the species locally or as a whole. As per Mitigation Measure Bio‐3 in the Supplemental MND, a nesting bird survey will be conducted and an appropriate buffer will be constructed around all active nests found prior to grading. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on these species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 15 2/28/2018 Comment 6‐4: Impacts on Special Status Species – Tricolored blackbird Tricolored blackbird has no potential to nest on the site given the lack of large areas of emergent vegetation thickets and existing surrounding development. Because crucial foraging habitat is typically located close to nesting areas, this species may occasionally forage on the project site outside of the nesting season, but is not likely to frequent or inhabit the site. This species has not been observed within the project area during any of the site visits. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on this species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. Comment 6‐5: Impacts on Special Status Species – Bald eagle Bald eagle has no potential to nest on the site, as nests are typically located next to large water bodies, which are absent from the vicinity of the project area. Crucial foraging habitat is located close to potential nesting areas, and the project site is not located adjacent to potential nesting sites due to surrounding development. This species may incidentally forage on the site, but is not likely to frequent or inhabit the site and the development of the site will not constitute a substantial adverse effect on the species locally or as a whole. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on this species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. Comment 6‐6: Impacts on Special Status Species – Bell’s sparrow This species most typically inhabits scrub and chaparral communities, and may occasionally forage within grasslands, but do not currently occupy the project site. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on this species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. See also response to Comment 6‐3. Comment 6‐7: Impacts on Special Status Species – Peregrine falcon One acre of disturbed and discontinuous wetlands does not constitute potential habitat for peregrine falcon. This species may incidentally forage within the project site; however, nesting is unlikely as buildings in the vicinity do not mimic the cliff faces used in absence of man‐made structures. The development of the site would not constitute a substantial adverse effect on the species locally or as a whole. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on this species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. As per Mitigation Measure Bio‐3 in the Supplemental MND, a nesting bird survey will be conducted and all active nests found will be given an appropriate buffer. Comment 6‐8: Impacts on Animals as a Result of Window Collisions See response to Comment 5‐12. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 16 2/28/2018 Comment 6‐9: Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources WRA analyzed cumulative impacts associated with projected growth within eastern Alameda County, including the East Dublin Specific Plan (1994, updated 2016) and the City of Dublin General Plan (2008), which designated areas for development within the Dublin Planning Area Boundaries. The project site is within the designated Specific Plan area and is surrounded by development on all sides. Further, the project site was previously developed as part of the former naval facility until the late 1950’s. Generally, wildlife inhabiting the project site are relatively common, urban‐adapted species currently doing so in spite of the development that surrounds the site. As discussed in the BRA, the project site does not connect larger habitat blocks and would thus not constitute a movement corridor for any species and would not substantially interfere with movement of wildlife in the vicinity or cause a substantial adverse effect on the species locally or as a whole. Comment 6‐10: Improperly Deferred Mitigation Measures See response to Comment 5‐10. Comment 6‐11: New Information and Changes in Circumstances Require Preparation of an EIR to Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s GHG Impacts See response to Comment 5‐6. Comment 6‐12: Changed Circumstances Have Occurred and New Information is Available Which Requires Preparation of an EIR as a Result of a New or More Serious Significant Air Quality Impacts. See response to Comments 5‐1, 5‐3, 5‐4 and 5‐5. Comment 6‐13: Changed Circumstances Have Occurred that Result in a New Significant Cumulative Traffic Impact, Requiring Preparation of and EIR. The Zeiss TCA utilized the most current versions of both the City of Dublin travel demand model (TDM) and the Alameda County Transportation Commission TDM to analyze traffic conditions on the surrounding roadway network. Both models include data regarding existing and future cumulative traffic projections on arterial roadways and Interstates 580 and 680. The Zeiss TCA concluded that the cumulative conditions were consistent with the traffic analysis conclusions previously analyzed in the Cisco IS/MND, and that there is no new information that requires the preparation of a supplemental EIR. Furthermore, the commenter does not present any substantial evidence that the Zeiss project will have a cumulatively considerable impact. The commenter purportedly presents some facts relating to a significant cumulative impact on I‐580, a regional traffic route to which the project will contribute few net new trips; particularly because 590 employees will be relocated from nearby existing Zeiss facilities (as part of Phase 1), and the net new trips on I‐580 will be less than one percent. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 17 2/28/2018 Therefore, the project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact on freeway ramps or on I‐580. Comment 6‐14: Changed Circumstances Have Occurred and New Information is Available Which Requires Preparation of an EIR as a Result of a New or More Significant Hazards Impact As documents in the Supplemental MND, the project site is vacant and currently contains no structures. It was previously used as a federal government installation, which may have involved the use or storage of potentially hazardous material. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Cisco IS/MND to assess the existence of hazardous materials from past uses of the property. The ESA indicated that the project site was part of an Army Base and Naval Hospital during World War II. All of the buildings and related structures were demolished between the late 1940s and early 1950s. Facilities included barracks and two former diesel or gasoline fueling stations. The underground tanks and piping have been removed. However, some heavy petroleum hydrocarbons were discovered near one of the former fueling stations during the ESA investigation. In addition, approximately 1,200 feet of metal pipe wrapped with tar paper containing small amounts of asbestos were also discovered. Mitigation Measure 3 of the Cisco IS/MND requires the removal of heavy petroleum hydrocarbons to the extent required by the appropriate regulatory agencies. A plume of groundwater with concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE) and other solvents was also detected beneath portions of Site 15A. The source of the PCE and solvent contamination is believed to be a former laundry facility which existed on Site 15B during the 1940s. A Health Risk Assessment prepared by Lowney Associates for the Cisco Systems IS/MND, dated November 2000, concluded that the PCE contaminated groundwater does not pose an unacceptable risk to future office, maintenance or construction workers as levels of contaminants are within the acceptable risk range established by the EPA National Contingency Plan. Subsequent to the preparation of Cisco IS/MND, the site has remained vacant and unchanged. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 3 and existing regulations, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from exposure to hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Comment 6‐15: The Project Requires a Water Supply Assessment Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures which seek to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 18 2/28/2018 The project site is located in Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water service area. DSRSD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted by the DSRSD Board of Directors in June 2016. The UWMP includes existing and projected future land uses within DSRSD’s service area and accounted for water demand from future commercial development on the project site based on build‐out projections as identified in the City of Dublin’s General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Campus Office, which is consistent with the proposed project. As described in the UWMP and summarized in Table 7‐1: DSRSD Summary of Potable Water Demand Versus Supply During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years, there is no forecasted deficit of potable water in the DSRSD service area through the year 2040. Recycled water is proposed to be used for exterior landscaping. If available recycled water supplies are insufficient to meet the irrigation demands for the project site due to current source water supply issues, the irrigation demands can also be met with potable water through the potable water offsets as described in the UWMP during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years for a 20‐year projection with no water supply shortage. As described in the 2015 UWMP, DSRSD plans to continue to manage potable water demands within its water service area through conservation efforts and its recycled water program. If water shortages should occur, DSRSD has the option of invoking its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan to ensure there is a sufficient supply of potable water. Furthermore, DSRSD reviewed the Supplemental MND and responded that the analysis and the conclusions regarding DSRSD’s ability to provide water service to the project site is consistent with the previous Cisco IS/MND approved in 2003, as noted in the letter by DSRSD dated January 12, 2018 included in the response to comments. Exhibit A – Ltr. from Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Comment 6‐16: Significant Impacts on Special Status Species – Western pond turtle There is no suitable aquatic habitat for western pond turtle on or adjacent to the site. Additionally, western pond turtles are extremely unlikely to nest on grasslands within the site because the site is surrounded by development and busy paved roads, making movement into the project site nearly impossible. The commenter presents no substantial evidence of the project’s significant adverse impact on this species and does not refute the information in the biologist report. Comment 6‐17: Protected Birds Covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Detection surveys are not necessary for nesting birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Wildlife Code, and do not require habitat mitigation. Pre‐construction surveys required under Mitigation Measure Bio‐3 will detect the number and location of birds nesting on the site and avoid those nests for the duration of nesting to ensure nesting activity of these City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 19 2/28/2018 individuals will not be impacted. CEQA does not require habitat mitigation for common species, and the development of the site will not cause a substantial adverse effect on wildlife species locally or as a whole. Exhibit B – Ltr. from Clark & Associates Comment 6‐18: Failure to Properly Evaluate the Impacts of the Proposed Project See response to Comments 5‐1, 5‐3, 5‐5, 5‐6 and 5‐7 Comment 6‐19: Failure to Prepare an Adequate Air Quality Analysis See response to Comments 5‐1, and 5‐3 through 5‐5. Comment 6‐20: Impacts from Construction Activities as Required by BAAQMD Guidelines See response to Comments 5‐1 and 5‐4. Comment 6‐21: NOx Emissions from Construction Are Likely to be Significant See response to Comments 5‐1 and 5‐5. Comment 6‐22: Impacts to Sensitive Receptors See response to Comment 5‐4. Comment 6‐23: Potential Health Risk from Exposure to Chemicals See response to Comment 6‐14. Furthermore, the proposed project will be required to comply with all regulatory requirements for chemicals used on‐site consistent with the discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the Supplemental MND. Exhibit C – Ltr. from Smith Engineering & Management Comment 6‐24: Trip Generation Analysis is Understated Because it Mischaracterizes the Nature of the Project General Office Building vs. Research & Development General Office Building (ITE Land Use Code 710) is not considered an appropriate land use clarification to determine project trip generation because offices, as surveyed and defined by ITE, may include multiple tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, bank, savings and loan institutions, restaurants and cafeterias, and retail facilities. The General Office Building classification does not include laboratory space, research staff, or research and development equipment. The Zeiss Innovation Center proposes to include laboratory space, research staff, and various research and development equipment, which results in travel characteristics that are different than office, and is not purely based on number of employees. The Research & Development (ITE Land Use Code 760), as presented in the Zeiss Innovation Center – Transportation Consistency Analysis memorandum and dated December 5, City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 20 2/28/2018 2017 (Zeiss TCA), is appropriate for trip generation purposes and accurately reflects the trips for the proposed project. Building Size vs. Employee While ITE provides data for estimating trip generation based on employment numbers, it’s use is not consistent with industry best practices for projects of this magnitude or type. Trip generation estimates based on building size (square feet) is the industry standard and is used in a clear majority of all traffic impact studies. Employment numbers vary over time based on economy dynamics, industry dynamics, and company dynamics. While the transportation analysis estimates the project trip generation for existing conditions and the cumulative year 2035, the number of onsite employees will not remain constant, however, the building size will. Additionally, the trip generation estimates provided in the transportation analysis and used in the evaluation of operations, very conservatively assumes that all trips generated by the project will be new. In reality however, as part of Phase 1, approximately 590 employees are anticipated to relocate from two nearby existing Zeiss facilities located at 5160 Hacienda Drive (Dublin) and 4385 Hopyard Road (Pleasanton). Trips associated with these employees already travel in the study area network, and therefore would be re‐directed trips, rather than entirely new trips. The analysis is thus conservative. Therefore, the use of building size instead of employment, as presented in the Zeiss TCA is appropriate for trip generation purposes. Comment 6‐25: IS/MND fails to Analyze Impacts at Key Intersections in the Project Vicinity As documented in the Zeiss TCA, the proposed project will generate fewer trips than that assumed and approved for both Cisco IS/MND and the EDSP EIR, both of which were for larger project areas. Following a review of the traffic studies for these projects, Kimley‐Horn’s traffic engineers prepared a trip generation and distribution analysis. The results were reviewed with City Staff in context to existing traffic conditions, future scenario traffic projections, City‐wide approved projects, and planned improvements. Given the results of the analysis above, and in the professional opinions of both the City of Dublin Public Works Department and Kimley‐Horn’s traffic engineers, it was determined that the intersections analyzed in the Zeiss TCA were adequate and that the projected volumes were not sufficient to warrant study at additional intersections, including:  Dublin Boulevard / Hacienda Drive  Hacienda Drive / I‐580 ramps  Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road  Dougherty Road ‐ Hopyard Road / I‐580 ramps City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 21 2/28/2018 Therefore, expansion of study intersections is not warranted. Comment 6‐26: IS/MND Fails to Analyze Project Traffic Impacts on Freeway Ramps and Mainline Segments in the Project Vicinity See response to Comment 6‐13. Comment 6‐27: IS MND Fails to Provide a Valid Cumulative Analysis See response to Comment 6‐13. Comment 6‐28: Assumption of 20 Percent Trip Reduction Through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is Excessive Based on regional experience, proximity to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and discussions with the project Applicant, the City of Dublin, in coordination with Kimley‐Horn traffic engineers determined that 20% trip reduction credit was an achievable TDM goal for the proposed project. The Zeiss TCA identifies various measures the Applicant can use to achieve or exceed this reduction. As part of the project, the Applicant includes a comprehensive TDM plan. The City will monitor the implementation of the TDM program. The Applicant is required to submit a yearly report on/or before September 30 of each year detailing the current status of the TDM measures, any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and the status of trip reduction amounts extracted from driveway counts and surveys. Should the Applicant fail to meet the 20% reduction goal, measures will be taken to increase TDM plan compliance, or penalties will be applied. Current TDM measures can attain as high as a 50% trip reduction during peak hours in the greater San Francisco Bay area. These are achieved through implementation and monitoring programs, consistent with the proposed project. The TDM measures to be used by the Applicant can easily achieve a 20% reduction, and will be monitored to confirm that the reduction goal is achieved. This is substantiated by the following and is consistent with the findings in the Zeiss TCA: BART Shuttle Service, Bus Transit Subsidies, and Carpooling/Ride Matching The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance identifies national evidence showing a 10%‐30% vehicle trip reduction for high to moderate transit TDM measures via support, promotion, information, alternative commute services, and/or financial incentives. The project conservatively assumes an 11% reduction for subsidized transit as well as carpooling incentives. (Source https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/chap10.htm) City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 22 2/28/2018 Preferential Carpool and Vanpool Parking As stated in the Zeiss TCA, a five percent (5%) reduction can reasonably be assumed for preferential HOV parking based on findings from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), March 12, 2013. The TDM goal conservatively assumes only a three percent (3%) trip reduction. On‐Site Car Share Programs The Applicant is committed to providing a funded on‐site car share program to employees at part of the TDM plan. In conjunction with City Staff and based on a similar program at other existing Zeiss facilities, a two percent (2%) vehicular trip reduction was assumed. Two percent (2%) of the AM peak hour trip generation estimate is roughly seven trips, which is one trip every seven minutes during the AM peak hour. This trip reduction is insignificant and does not change the findings of the analysis. Flex‐Time and Staggered Work Shifts The Zeiss TCA assumed a one percent (1%) reduction estimate based on guidance/data from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), March 12, 2013. Bike Lockers and Locker Rooms The Zeiss TCA assumed a two percent (2%) trip reduction estimate based on guidance/data from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), March 12, 2013. TDM Kiosk and Coordinator The TDM State of the Practice (Smart Growth America, 2013) estimates that a 1.4% reduction in trips can be expected with the implementation of a targeted and sustained education outreach and marketing campaign. For the purposes of the Zeiss TCA, a conservative trip estimate of one percent (1%) was assumed. Peak Hour Travel Characteristics Regarding peak hour travel characteristics, trip generation rates were estimated using ITE rates for the AM and PM peak hours, as well as daily weekdays. ITE data shows that all employees do not arrive and depart offices, laboratories, etc. during the peak hour. In fact, without any incentives, some employees will arrive before the peak, some will arrive during the peak, some will arrive after the peak, and some work from home, are out on vacation, or out sick. The commenter inaccurately describes arrival patterns for the project. The commenter references the number of vehicle trips arriving in the peak hour, but then suggest the remaining 69 percent of employees are also arriving via alternative travel modes during the same peak hour. Stating that the 1,500 employees arrive during one hour is incorrect, thus, the subsequent data provided and assumptions made by the commenter are incorrect. City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental IS/ MND Response to Comments | Page 23 2/28/2018 Exhibit D – Ltr. from Air & Water Sciences Comment 6‐29: Project Has Not Undergone a Complete and Through Review The basis for using the previous Cisco IS/MND and EDSP EIR are fully documented in the project IS/Supplemental MND and is incorporated herein by reference. See also response to Comments 6‐12 and 6‐13. Regarding specific discussion regarding underground hazards, see response to Comment 6‐14. ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. ZONE 7 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY, LIVERMORE. CA 94551-9486· P HONE (925) 454-5000 Martha Battaglia City of Dublin, Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Sent by email : martha.battaglia@ dublin.ca.gov January 9, 2018 Re: Zeiss Innovation Center -Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration I Initial Stndy Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7, or Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) has reviewed the referenced document in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide water supply, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. Following are our comments for your consideration: I. Page 6 and page 52: We noticed a potential error in the calculation of the 4% effective impervious area to meet the Alameda County C.3 requirements (we calculate 14,092 SF). Also, this analysis should state the volume of water the project plans to treat, as well as indicate at what level storm event (lO-year, etc.) the primary and secondary bio-retention basins will get overburdened and discharge directly to the City's storm drains. Zone 7 would like to receive any forthcoming studies or plans that include assessment of potential impacts to the regional flood conveyance system. 2. New development and the expansion of existing development may impose a burden on the existing flood protection and storm drainage infrastructure within the Zone 7 service area. Developments creating new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley are subject to the assessment of the Development Impact Fee for Flood Protection and Storm Water Drainage. These fees are collected for Zone 7 by the local governing agency: I) upon approval of final map for public improvements creating new impervious areas ; andlor 2) upon issuance of a building or use permit required fo r site improvements creating new impervious areas. Fees are dependent on whether post-project impervious area conditions are greater than pre-project conditions andlor whether fees have previously been paid. Please refer to Zone 7's Flood Protection & Storm Water Drainage Development Impact Fee Ordinance and additional information at: http://www.zone7water.comlpermits-a-fees . 'I11ank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Jfyou have any questions on this letter, please feel free to contact me at (925) 454-5005 or via email at erank@zone7water.com , Sincerely, EJ~rLA-- ElkeRank cc: Carol Mahoney, Amparo Flores, Joe Seto, Jeff Tang, file STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (510) 286-5559 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Making Conservation a California Way of Life “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” January 11, 2018 Martha Battaglia Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SCH# 1991103064 GTS # 04-ALA-2017-00222 GTS I.D. 8915 ALA - 580 - 19.043 Zeiss Innovation Center – Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Martha Battaglia: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. In tandem with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), Caltrans’ mission signals a modernization of our approach to evaluate and mitigate impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN). Caltrans’ Strategic Management Plan 2015-2020 aims to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by tripling bicycle and doubling both pedestrian and transit travel by 2020. Our comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Project Understanding Carl Zeiss, Inc. (ZEISS) has applied for a Planned Development Zoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit for the Zeiss Innovation Center (the proposed project). The proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan Land Use Designation of Campus Office. The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of a three-story, 208,650 gross square feet (gsf) Research and Development (R&D) building, with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces. Phase 2 would consist of an additional five-story, 224,440 gsf R&D building with 167 surface parking spaces, and a five-story, 1,229-space parking garage. At build-out, the proposed project would include two low-to-mid-rise (three-story and five-story) R&D buildings totaling 433,090 gsf and would be used for research, development and testing, light assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting office spaces. Other internal uses would include conference rooms, an employee cafeteria, and a demonstration center/showroom on the ground floor. At build-out, parking would include a parking garage with 1,229 spaces and 167 Martha Battaglia, City of Dublin January 11, 2018 Page 2 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” surface parking spaces, for a total of 1,396 spaces. Other miscellaneous exterior features would include a utilities enclosure, trash/recycling enclosure, nitrogen pad enclosure, bike storage enclosure, loading areas and landscaping. The project site is regionally accessed 0.5 miles from the Interstate (I)-580/ Hacienda Drive interchange. The project site would accommodate approximately 1,500 employees at build-out. To help reduce drive-alone trips, the Applicant has agreed to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program with a goal of reducing travel trip by 20% from the estimated average daily trips as identified in the Traffic Consistency Analysis (Kimley-Horn, December 2017). Trip reduction measures to be considered may include the following:  Provide complementary BART and bus passes and provide guaranteed ride home services for emergencies.  Provide dedicated on-campus parking (5% of supply) for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs).  Provide staggered working hours.  Provide additional bike racks and lockers on-campus, including shower facilities.  Conduct educational outreach and marketing to promote the use of non-automotive options for commuting by having an on-site TDM kiosk and TDM coordinator. The project Applicant also has committed to providing a shuttle service to and from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This shuttle would access the project site via Park Place, just south of Central Parkway. Shuttles would pick-up and drop-off in the parking lot. Project Description Please revise the total number of parking spaces at build-out from 1,396 spaces to 2,059 spaces. The total should include the 663 parking spaces proposed for Phase I of the project. Multimodal Planning Caltrans strongly encourages the City of Dublin, as the Lead Agency, to adopt all of the trip reduction measures being considered as part of the project’s TDM Program and request the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program be submitted to Caltrans (Pub. Res. Code §21081.6; Guidelines §15074(d)). Furthermore, we ask the Lead Agency to reduce the project’s parking supply in order to encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips and effectively implement TDM. The proposed parking supply for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project exceeds the City of Dublin’s parking requirements. The Lead Agency should consider lowering the minimum parking required for the project, or establishing it as a maximum. At the very least, we recommend the project not exceed the minimum parking requirement in Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance. Bicycle improvements connecting the new R&D Facility with the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station should be considered as transportation mitigation for the project, specifically the Iron Horse Parkway proposed Class IIA (Bicycle Lane) improvement from the City of Dublin’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (page 96). Closing the bike path gap would facilitate Zeiss Martha Battaglia, City of Dublin January 11, 2018 Page 3 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” Innovation Center employees’ bike commute by improving the most direct route from the BART station to their employment center. Vehicle Trip Reduction From Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, the project site is identified as Place Type 4: Suburban Communities (Corridors) where location efficiency factors, such as community design, are weak and regional accessibility varies. The project is surrounded by the Town Center (Dublin), Transit Center/Dublin Crossings (Dublin) and Hacienda (Pleasanton) Priority Development Areas (PDAs), the City of Dublin should consider coordinating with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to extend a PDA into the project site. Given the project’s intensification of use and its proximity to three PDA sites, the project should include a robust TDM Program to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Project site design should also ensure that high quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connects pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, as directly and with as few conflicts as possible, between key neighborhood sites. Such measures will be critical in order to facilitate efficient transportation access to and from the project site and reduce transportation impacts associated with the project. The measures listed below will promote smart mobility and reduce regional VMT.  Ten percent vehicle parking reduction;  Permanently subsidize transit passes for employees;  Project design to encourage walking, bicycling and convenient transit access;  Caltrans compliments the Lead Agency in including 70 bicycle spaces and suggests including a plan for expanding bicycle parking when the spaces reach capacity;  Carpool and clean-fuel parking spaces conveniently located to encourage carpooling and clean-fuel vehicles;  Charging stations and designated parking spaces for electric vehicles;  Secured bicycle storage facilities located conveniently near entrances to minimize determent of bicycle use due to weather conditions;  Fix-it bicycle repair station(s);  Outdoor areas with patios, furniture, pedestrian pathways, picnic and recreational areas;  Bicycle route mapping resources and bicycle parking incentives;  Participation/Formation in/of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) in partnership with other developments in the area; and  Aggressive trip reduction targets with annual Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement. Transportation Demand Management programs should be documented with annual monitoring reports by an onsite TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also include next steps to take in order to achieve those targets. As previously mentioned, reducing parking supply can encourage active forms of transportation, reduce regional VMT, and lessen future transportation impacts on I-580 Martha Battaglia, City of Dublin January 11, 2018 Page 4 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability” and other nearby State facilities. These smart growth approaches are consistent with the MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan/SCS goals and would meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan sustainability goals. For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8). The reference is available online at: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf. Transportation Impact Fees Please identify project travel demand or VMT and estimate the costs of public transportation improvements necessitated by the proposed project; viable funding sources such as development and/or transportation impact fees should also be identified. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions toward multi-modal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT. Travel Demand Analysis Please analyze VMT resulting from the proposed project. With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focusing on transportation infrastructure that supports smart growth and efficient development to ensure alignment with State policies through the use of efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, multimodal improvements, and VMT as the primary transportation impact metric. Please ensure that the travel demand analysis includes:  A vicinity map, regional location map, and site plan clearly showing project access in relation to the STN. Ingress and egress for all project components should be clearly identified. Clearly identify the State right-of-way. Project driveways, local roads and intersections, car/bike parking, and transit facilities should be mapped.  A VMT analysis pursuant to the Lead Agency’s guidelines or, if the Lead Agency has no guidelines, the Office of Planning and Research’s Draft Guidelines. Projects that result in automobile VMT per capita greater than 15% below existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use types may indicate a significant impact. If necessary, mitigation for increasing VMT should be identified. Mitigation should support the use of transit and active transportation modes. Potential mitigation measures that include the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments under the control of the Lead Agency.  A schematic illustration of walking, biking and auto conditions at the project site and study area roadways. Potential issues for all road users should be identified and fully mitigated. www.ebcnps.org 510-734-0335 conservation@ebcnps.org January 30, 2018 City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Attn: Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner Submitted by email to: martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov RE: Notice of Availability on the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Initial Study (MND/IS) for the Zeiss Innovation Center project proposal (PLPA-2017-00025), State Clearinghouse No. 19991103064 Dear Ms. Battaglia, The following are the comments of the California Native Plant Society, East Bay Chapter (EBCNPS) in regard to the MND/ IS for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center project. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit organization of more than 10,000 laypersons and professional botanists organized into 34 chapters throughout California. The Society’s mission is to increase the understanding and appreciation of California's native plants and to preserve them in their natural habitat through scientific activities, education, and conservation. Our East Bay Chapter of CNPS (EBCNPS) covers Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and represents approximately 1,000 members. Pursuant to the mission of protecting California’s native flora and vegetation, EBCNPS submits the following comments: The MND/ IS lacks vital information such as protocol-level surveys for all potentially-present biological resources. For this reason, it is impossible to determine the extent of significant impacts to biological resources as well as adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. As well, mitigation measures that are proposed for this project appear inadequate to bring the level of impact below the level of potentially significant. Thus, the current IS/MND is inadequate. www.ebcnps.org 510-734-0335 conservation@ebcnps.org 2 Perform Adequate, Comprehensive Biological Surveys 1. Special-Status Plant Species: Surveys have not yet been performed for several special-status species with reasonable potential to occur on the site. Ruderal conditions do not preclude the presence of special- status species, and this is inadequate reasoning for not performing surveys to accurately characterize current conditions on the project site. Appendix C repeatedly provides the following reasoning for evaluating “no potential” or “unlikely” to occur: The Project Area is highly disturbed by past development and land management activities, which completely altered the natural topography of the site; as a result, it is characterized by dense, nonnative annual species characteristic of ruderal and disturbed habitats and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. We recommend performing full, protocol-level surveys of the study area, which is the preferred approach for survey and assessment for special-status plants and animals in California, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009): “Surveys should be comprehensive over the entire site, including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project.” Plant surveys must be seasonally appropriate and floristic in nature. Two botanical surveys were performed for this project to detect special-status plant species. However, it is likely that multiple other special-status plant species with reasonable likelihood to occur (even in ruderal areas) were not surveyed. 2. Vernal Pools and Special-Status Invertebrate Species Additionally, surveys for vernal pools and special-status invertebrate species are critically necessary and have not been performed. Vernal pools are an especially sensitive type of wetland and critical habitat for many special-status vernal pool plants and crustaceans. Vernal pools could reasonably be found in the project area, and these pools may have unique attributes specific to the Livermore Valley area. Also, note that vernal pools may or may not contain a large number of special-status species, so their overall floristic composition may be a helpful measure because they are still a valuable and protected ecosystem. Ruderal conditions do not preclude presence of vernal pools or special-status invertebrate species, either. It appears that surveys were not performed due to assumption that disturbed areas cannot contain these sensitive resources. MND/IS Appendix C (p C-13) reads, for example: The Project Area does not contain vernal pool habitat. The Project Area is highly disturbed by past development and land management activities, which completely altered the natural topography of the site; as a result, it is characterized by dense, nonnative annual species characteristic of ruderal and disturbed habitats. Some www.ebcnps.org 510-734-0335 conservation@ebcnps.org 3 seasonally inundated areas have formed in low spots in the disturbed landscape, but they are characterized by non-native species typical of disturbed seasonal wetland conditions. Although alkaline and sometimes clay soils are present, the highly disturbed nature of the Project Area is unlikely to support this species. If vernal pools and accompanying special-status species are present on the project site, even in poor or disturbed condition, several regulations require their preservation and enhancement and/ or mitigation for impacts. One example is East Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.7. This MND/IS references project adherence specifically to East Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.7/28 which requires surveys for special-status invertebrate species. These surveys are necessary now for an adequate MND/IS analysis. Presence of alkaline soils was not elsewhere addressed in the MND/IS except as noted above (Appendix C). These are soils are rare and contain high potential for harboring special-status plant species, and they are reasonably likely to occur on the project site. We request additional detail about location and extent of alkaline soils present on the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Adequate Mitigation for Congdon’s tarplant Avoiding existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is a primary favored conservation approach. Where the species cannot be avoided, then we recommend following the EACCS mitigation guidelines. Congdon’s tarplant is a focal plant species under that plan, with a 5:1 mitigation ratio. EACCS mitigation ratios for focal plant species refer to the size of the population that is effected or protected. Currently, the MM BIO-2 is to “Collect Congdon’s Tarplant and California Dock Seed Stock” (pp 28, MND/IS). It is unclear whether necessary parcel acquisition is planned to occur in addition to collecting seed stock, or if the proposed mitigation is only to collect seed stock. However, harvesting seed alone is not an adequate mitigation measure for such a highly rare special-status plant species as Congdon’s tarplant (CNPS Rare Plant Rank 1B.1). Banking seed for use in future reintroduction into suitable habitat is an EACCS Conservation Action, however, this is probably best intended for restoration more than mitigation purposes. In the case of impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, mitigation is required. Apparently included in MM BIO-2 is an additional condition: “The project Applicant shall follow the mitigation guidelines as established in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; 2010)” (pp 29 MND/IS). These EACCS guidelines include conditions which have not yet been met or described in any detail by the applicant in the context of MM BIO-2, and details are not apparent elsewhere in the MND/IS. These unmet conditions include: an adequate (comprehensive) floristic survey of the impacted site; and, acquisition of a separate parcel where focal plant species occurs, at a 5:1 mitigation ratio. Comprehensive floristic surveys have not yet occurred but are needed now at the level of www.ebcnps.org 510-734-0335 conservation@ebcnps.org 4 the MND/IS. Also, MM BIO-2 needs to emphasize and acknowledge the need for future parcel acquisition and describe nearby sites that are potentially eligible. Additional Mitigation for California dock MM BIO-2 needs to describe further mitigation measures proposed for significant impacts to California dock (Rumex californicus) besides only collecting seed stock. California dock is a locally rare species in the East Bay and locally rare species are defined as “rare” (see Appendix to this letter). It is not a focal plant species described in the EACCS, and so portions of MM BIO-2 that refer to EACCS are likely not intended to apply to California dock. So, we request a description of additional mitigations for impact to this species. A failure to locate a special-status plant species is not evidence that it no longer exists at this location. Thus, we also recommend the following sentence be deleted from MM BIO- 2 in the MND/IS (p 28): “If no special-status plant species are found, then the proposed project would not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.” Mitigation would still be required, even if known occurrences are not re- found during these pre-construction surveys, and also, if previous biological surveys were not comprehensive enough to detect other special-status species actually present and potentially impacted. Other Observations We note that performance standards and success criteria are necessary for all Mitigation Measures, and we request inclusion of quantitative standards and criteria for each proposed measure. The existing proposed mitigations do not include standards or criteria. We note that indirect impacts are not adequately analyzed in this MND/IS. These impacts are also potentially significant. We request disclosure, analysis, and mitigation for both direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project, and evaluation of significance of each potential impact. Lastly, we also note that a new commercial building complex should consider the growth- inducing impacts of the project on special-status plants and sensitive natural communities in the vicinity. www.ebcnps.org 510-734-0335 conservation@ebcnps.org 5 In conclusion, we request: - adequate surveys for all potentially present special-status species and sensitive natural communities, - mitigation for Congdon’s tarplant that includes description of avoidance and anticipated land acquisition for mitigation purposes, - improved mitigation proposed for California dock - disclosure, analysis, and mitigation for indirect impacts specifically for biological resources - establishment of success criteria and performance standards within mitigation measures If you have any questions, please contact me at conservation@ebcnps.org or at 510-734-0335. Sincerely, Karen Whitestone Conservation Analyst East Bay California Native Plant Society www.ebcnps.org 510-734-0335 conservation@ebcnps.org 6 APPENDIX TO COMMENTS - The proposed project area is in close proximity to regions conserved due to their high biodiversity and rich natural resource values. The project area should be investigated for natural resources that occur in common with the following conserved areas, and additional areas if also relevant: • Springtown Preserve (Garaventa Wetlands) in Livermore • Brushy Peak Regional Park in Livermore • Doolan Canyon Regional Preserve in Dublin - The study area is located very close to a region that our organization recognizes as a Botanical Priority Protection Area (BPPA), one of fifteen areas in the East Bay with high probability for containing rare and locally rare native plants. BPPAs are defined as areas that are not yet conserved but do contain unusual soil types that are disappearing in the East Bay, and have many historic or current occurrence records for native plants that are rare, locally rare, or unusual. The East Dublin & Tassajara BPPA is characterized by sensitive natural communities such as alkaline habitats (grasslands, scrubs, wetlands, swales) and Northern claypan vernal pools; as well as rare and distinctive plants such as Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii, 1B.1), San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana, 1B.2), white-headed navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. leucocephala, A2), Semaphore grass (Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus, B), saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum, 1B.2), and yellow owl’s clover (Triphysaria versicolor ssp. faucibarbata, A2). - An incomplete list of protected sensitive natural communities that may exist in the study area include: wetlands, vernal pools, alkali sink ecosystems, sandstone rock outcrops, and Northern claypan vernal pools. - The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires assessment of all CNPS Rank 1 and 2 plants, which are considered rare, threatened or endangered, or even presumed extirpated, within California. Impacts on these special-status plants are potentially significant [CEQA Guidelines §15125 (c) and §15380)]. In addition, unusual and significant plants may have local or regional significance, which is another potential impact requiring evaluation (CEQA Appendix G, Environmental Checklist). All special- status plants as well as locally rare plants, are likely indicative of sensitive natural communities protected by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). February 5, 2018 Martha Battaglia 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Response to Comment Letter from California Native Plant Society Dear Ms. Battaglia, The following is a formal response to the comments presented by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) in their January 30, 2018 letter to the City of Dublin. 1. Protocol-level surveys following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) plant survey guidelines (CDFG 2009) were conducted on May 9 and August 9 of 2017 by WRA, the methods and findings of which are contained in the Rare Plant Survey Report (August 2017). An additional site constraints survey was conducted on April 12, 2017. This site visit, though not explicitly a rare plant survey, provided an initial assessment of the conditions and resources present at the site and informed the rare plant survey dates. During the course of these three surveys, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) was the only CNPS-ranked rare plant encountered. 2. A formal wetland delineation was conducted by WRA on April 10, 2017; results are presented in Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (July 2017). The Study Area contains nine seasonal wetland features that total approximately 1.03 acres. No vernal pools were present within the Study Area. 3. As described in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared by WRA (August 2017), the Project Area contains one native soil mapping unit: Clear Lake Clay (p.14). The two biological communities present within the Project Area are developed/ruderal herbaceous grassland and seasonal wetland (p.17). 4. As presented in MM Bio-2, Congdon’s tarplant within the Project Area will be avoided, where possible. Mitigation for impacted individuals will be consistent with the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; 2010), which outlines a 5:1 mitigation ratio based on impacted population size (EACCS table 3- 12). Under EACCS, mitigation for the loss of focal species can be accomplished by protecting occupied habitat, or creating or restoring suitable habitat. Compliance with the mitigation measure, including off- site location, will be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Additionally, MM Bio-2 describes criteria that state the mitigation population shall be equivalent in terms of population size and vigor as the affected population. 5. California dock (Rumex californicus) is a common wetland plant with widespread distribution throughout montane regions in California and the west. This plant is not listed as a CNPS ranked rare plant, and is only considered locally rare within Alameda and Contra Costa counties 1. Because California dock is not listed as 1 California Native Plant Society's East Bay Chapter's Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, available online at: https://ebcnps.fatcow.com/cgi-bin/ebrare/ebrare.cgi a focal species under EACCS or a CNPS ranked rare plant, avoidance measures and a 5:1 mitigation ratio for impacted plants is sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level. 6. MM Bio-2 outlines that “The Project Applicant shall follow the mitigation guidelines as established in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy.” EACCS guidelines include mitigation standards and restoration ratios, which define criteria for assessment of successful mitigation. 7. Indirect impacts to focal species that result from post-project activities are analyzed within EACCS. Implementation of the avoidance measures outlined in EACCS tables 3-2 and 3-3 will ensure minimization of these impacts. 8. EACCS analyzed cumulative impacts associated with projected growth within eastern Alameda County, including the East Dublin Specific Plan (1994, updated 2016) and the City of Dublin general plan (2008), which designated areas for development within the Dublin Planning Area Boundaries. The Project Area is within the designated Planning Area Boundary and is surrounded by development on all sides. Further, the Project Area was previously developed as part of the Camp Shoemaker naval facility until the late 1950’s. 9. Results of the biological surveys conducted by WRA are summarized in the reports listed below, available on the City of Dublin website: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/ • Biological Resources Assessment (August 2017) • Rare Plant Survey Report (August 2017) • Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (July 2017) Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kari Dupler WRA Associate Wetland Biologist 4107-005acp MILA A. BUCKNER DANIEL L. CARDOZO CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW TANYA A. GULESSERIAN MARC D. JOSEPH RACHAEL E. KOSS COLLIN S. McCARTHY LINDA T. SOBCZYNSKI SACRAMENTO OFFICE 520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721 TEL: (916) 444-6201 FAX: (916) 444-6209 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037 ___________ TEL: (650) 589-1660 FAX: (650) 589-5062 ccaro@adamsbroadwell.com printed on recycled paper February 13, 2018 Via Email and Hand Delivery Planning Commissioners Tara Bhuthimethee, Scott Mittan, Amit Kothari, Stephen Wright, Samir Quereshi City of Dublin City Council Chamber 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Email: PlanningCommission@ci.dublin.ca.us Via Email Only Ms. Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner (Martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov) Re: Agenda Item 5.2: Zeiss Innovation Center - Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2017-00025) Dear Planning Commissioners, Ms. Battaglia: These preliminary comments are submitted on behalf of Dublin Residents for Responsible Development (“Dublin Residents”) regarding Agenda Item 5.2: Zeiss Innovation Center, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2017-00025) (“Project”), and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (“MND”) prepared for the Project. The Project, proposed by Carl Zeiss, Inc. (“Applicant”), proposes to develop a two phase Project. Phase 1 would consist of a three-story, 208,650 gross square feet (“GSF”) Research and Development (“R&D”) building with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces. Phase 2 would consist of an additional five-story, 224,440 GSF R&D building with 167 surface parking spaces, and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage. Dublin Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker February 13, 2018 Page 2 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper health and safety hazards and environmental impacts of the Project. The association includes City of Dublin residents; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 342, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 and their members and their families; and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of Dublin and Alameda County. Dublin Residents have a strong interest in enforcing the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Based upon our review of the MND and Staff Report, we conclude that the MND fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act1 (“CEQA”). The MND fails to disclose and evaluate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and fails to propose enforceable measures that can reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Moreover, the proposed adoption of an MND in lieu of preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”) violates CEQA because a fair argument exists that the Project will result in potentially significant impacts relating to air quality and to biological resources. The City may not approve the Project until it prepares a supplemental environmental impact report (“SEIR”) that adequately analyzes the Project’s potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts. Dublin Residents submits these comments and expert reports in response to the MND and Staff Report. Dublin Residents reserves the right to supplement these comments at later hearings on this Project.2 These comments incorporate the expert comments of air quality and hazards experts Matt Hagemann and Hadley Nolan of Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), whose technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Attachment A;3 and biological resources expert Scott Cashen, whose technical comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Attachment B.4 1 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). 2 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. 3 Attachment A: Letter from Matt Hagemann and Hadley Nolan to Christina Caro re: Comments on the Zeiss Innovation Project, February 13, 2018 (“SWAPE Comments”). 4 Attachment B: Letter from Scott Cashen to Christina Caro re: Comments on the Zeiss Innovation Project, February 12, 2018 (“Cashen Comments”). February 13, 2018 Page 3 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper I. THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT REQUIRE THE CITY TO PREPARE AN SEIR Under CEQA, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.5 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.6 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.7 Substantial evidence can be provided by technical experts or members of the public.8 “If a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.”9 The enclosed technical comments of SWAPE and Mr. Cashen provide substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant, inadequately mitigated impacts in, inter alia, the following respects:  Construction Emissions: The MND failed to include a quantified analysis of the Project’s construction emissions. SWAPE prepared a CalEEMod model that includes site-specific information and updated input parameters for the 5 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f), (h); Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal. 4th at p. 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1601-1602. 6 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754. 7 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002 (“If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an [environmental impact report] and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact”). 8 See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1340 (substantial evidence regarding noise impacts included public comments at hearings that selected air conditioners are very noisy); see also Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey, 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1117-1118 (substantial evidence regarding impacts to historic resource included fact-based testimony of qualified speakers at the public hearing); Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 199. 9 CEQA Guidelines § 15062(f). February 13, 2018 Page 4 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper Project. SWAPE’s modeling demonstrates that, when the Project’s construction emissions are compared to applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) thresholds, both the Project’s construction-related ROG and NOx emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds. SWAPE’s findings are summarized in the table below: Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) SWAPE Model ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction 238 76 2.7 12.3 BAAQMD Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No SWAPE’s calculations and expert comments constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have significant construction emissions that the MND fails to disclose and mitigate.  Health Risk from Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants During Project Construction and Operation: The MND concludes, without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment (“HRA”), that the Project would not have a significant impact to nearby sensitive receptors. SWAPE performed a screening level health risk assessment of the Project’s construction and operational emissions at nearby sensitive receptors. Based on this assessment, SWAPE concludes that the Project will result in a significant cancer risk to local sensitive receptors on the magnitude of 4.9, 32, and 430 in one million for adults, children and infants, respectively. This exceeds BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million, and is a per se significant impact under CEQA.  Significant Impacts to Listed Species: The MND failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts to Special-Status Branchiopods. As Mr. Cashen explains, the Project site lies within the “Livermore Vernal Pool Region.” Ephemeral pools in the Livermore Vernal Pool Region provide habitat for special-status branchiopods, including the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the California linderiella. Although the Project site contains several seasonal wetlands, The MND’s Biological Resources Assessment incorrectly concludes that there is “no February 13, 2018 Page 5 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper potential” for these species to occur at the Project site. Mr. Cashen provides expert testimony that these species are likely to occur at the Project site, and are likely to be adversely impacted by the Project. The MND fails to disclose and mitigate these potentially significant impacts. II. CONCLUSION There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant adverse impacts that were not identified in the MND, and thus have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated. We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA by withdrawing the MND and preparing a legally adequate SEIR to address the potentially significant impacts described in this comment letter and the attached letters from SWAPE and Mr. Cashen. This is the only way the City and the public will be able to ensure that the Project’s significant environmental impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Sincerely, Christina M. Caro CMC:acp 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com February 13, 2018 Christina Caro Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Comments on the ZEISS Innovation Center Project Dear Ms. Caro, We have reviewed the December 2017 Initial Study and Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the ZEISS Innovation Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of Dublin. The Project proposes to develop the site in two phases. Phase 1 includes construction of a 208,650-square foot research and development building with a 663-spot surface parking lot. Phase 2 consists of another 224,440-square foot research and development building with a 167-spot surface parking lot and a 1,229- spot parking garage. Both research and development buildings would be used for research, development and testing, light assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting office spaces. At buildout, the proposed Project would include two low-to-midrise (three-story and five-story) research and development buildings totaling 433,090 gross square feet and a total of 1,396 parking spaces on an 11.36 acre-site. Our review concludes that IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts. As a result, emissions and health impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. Our analysis, as described herein, demonstrates that there are potentially significant impacts that were not disclosed, and new mitigation measures that were not considered in the IS/MND that could reduce the Project’s impacts to a less than significant level. A Project-specific DEIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2 Air Quality Failure to Adequately Evaluate Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions According to the IS/MND, the Project site is subject of two previous projects proposed in 1993 and 2003. In May 1993, the Dublin City Council certified an EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which contained mitigation measures that would be applied to any development within the project area (IS/MND, p. 1). Additionally, the Project site is the subject of a previous IS/MND prepared for the Cisco Systems project in 2003, which proposed 430,090 square feet of office and research and development space to accommodate 3,000 employees (IS/MND, p. 1). In order to evaluate the proposed Project’s impacts, the IS/MND for the proposed Project was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, and concludes that because “there are no substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR” and because “the proposed land uses on the project site is not a substantial change from the Cisco Systems IS/MND analysis” the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact with respect to air quality (IS/MND, p. 1, p. 4). Additionally, the IS/MND further reasons that because the proposed Project would have no new air quality impacts when compared to the Cisco Systems project or the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project, the proposed Project’s air quality impact would be less than significant (IS/MND, p. 19-21). However, this conclusion and significance determination is incorrect, as the IS/MND for the proposed Project fails to actually evaluate the Project’s potential impacts, and instead bases its conclusion of a less than significant air quality impact on analyses conducted for other projects proposed almost twenty-five and fifteen years ago. Without substantial evidence and a proper analysis demonstrating that the criteria air pollutant emissions that will be generated during construction and operation of the proposed Project will not result in a significant impact, the IS/MND cannot claim that the Project’s emissions will not have a significant impact on local and regional air quality. The IS/MND fails to provide any sort of updated emission quantification or modeling to supporting its finding of a less than significant air quality impact (p. 20). The IS/MND simply states, “Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedances of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Eastern Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.111A and B). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0, Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements, short-term project-level air quality impacts would be less-than-significant. These mitigation measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. With adherence to these mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, project-level impacts would be less-than-significant, and no additional analysis is required” (p. 20). This significance determination, however, is not supported by any substantial evidence. The Eastern Dublin Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project site was to be developed as a “mixed-use community” with 12,458 new homes and 10.928 million square feet of new commercial space (Eastern Dublin GPA 3 and SP Part 1, p. SM-4 - SM-5). Review of Appendix H of the Eastern Dublin EIR demonstrates that the project’s emissions were modeled in URBEMIS 3 (Eastern Dublin GPA and SP Part 2, pp. 81). Based on the URBEMIS3 output files, the Eastern Dublin EIR states that operational ROG and NOx emissions would exceed significance thresholds (Eastern Dublin GPA and SP Part 1, p. 3.11-5). As a result the Eastern Dublin EIR implemented Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 through 3.11/13.0 in order to reduce these emissions (Eastern Dublin GPA and SP Part 1, p. 3.11-5 - 3.11-6). However, the ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND is proposing to develop 433,090 square feet of research and development space, a 1,229-spot parking garage, and a 167-spot surface parking lot (p. 2). Therefore, the ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND does not propose any of the land uses modeled for in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As such, the ZEISS Center IS/MND cannot simply claim that the Project’s emissions would be below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance with the mitigation measures listed in the Eastern Dublin EIR without first estimating the air pollutant emissions for the land uses proposed in the ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND. The IS/MND should not be approved until the criteria air pollutants are quantified in an Project-specific DEIR. Unsubstantiated Operational Daily Trip Rate The ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND provides an updated Traffic Consistency Analysis (TCA), found in Appendix E, to compare the traffic generated by the ZEISS Innovation Center to the traffic analyses conducted in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and the Eastern Dublin EIR. According to the ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND, the “proposed project would generate less traffic compared to the project that was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Cisco Systems IS/MND” (p. 74). However, review of Table 3 in the TCA shows that the ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND relied upon an incorrect trip rate in order to estimate the number of trips that will be generated by the Zeiss Innovation Center’s research and development land use (see excerpt below) (Appendix E, Table 3, p. 12). 4 As you can see in the excerpt above, the Research and Development land use utilizes a trip rate of 7.83 per thousand square feet. However, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Trip Generation,” 9th Edition, a weekday, average trip rate of 8.11 should be used for the Research and Development land use. By relying on a trip rate of 7.83, the ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND underestimates the number of vehicle trips by approximately 97 trips per day, or by 35,045 trips per year. An updated TCA should be included in a Project-specific DEIR in order to more accurately evaluate the Project’s traffic-related impacts. Updated Analysis Indicates Significant Construction Emissions In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project's emissions, we prepared an updated air model using the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.1 ("CalEEMod").1 CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions because it is the successor to planning level emissions estimating software, URBEMIS.2 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be 1 CalEEMod website, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ 2 While the CalEEMod model utilized for this analysis is not the same as the URBEMIS model utilized in the previous air quality analysis, the results from CalEEMod are still comparable to the results from the IS’s URBEMIS model. CalEEMod is more appropriate to use and will provide more accurate emission estimates because it incorporates more up to date information such as EMFAC2011 emission factors. The differences between CalEEMod and URBEMIS are available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ 5 justified by substantial evidence.3 Once all the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files, which we have included as an attachment to this letter for reference, disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollution emissions, and make known which default values were changed as well as provide a justification for the values selected.4 We prepared an updated CalEEMod model that includes more site-specific information and correct input parameters. Since the ZEISS Center IS/MND provides little information on Project construction, we used CalEEMod defaults to estimate emissions. Additionally, we inputted trip rates that would reflect the 20% trip reduction included in the ZEISS Center IS/MND’s TCA (Appendix E, Table 3, p. 12). When the Project’s emissions are compared to the BAAQMD’s thresholds, we find that the Project’s construction emissions would be significant. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related ROG and NOx emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day (lbs/day) (see table below). Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) SWAPE Model ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction 238 76 2.7 12.3 BAAQMD Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No As demonstrated in the table above, when correct modeling parameters are used, the Project’s construction-related ROG and NOx emissions both exceed the BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds. As such, a Project-specific DEIR must be prepared that includes an updated model to adequately estimate the Project’s emissions, and additional mitigation measures should be identified and incorporated to reduce these emissions to less than significant levels.5 Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The ZEISS Innovation Center IS/MND determines that the Project would not have a significant impact to nearby sensitive receptors, without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment (HRA) (p. 21). The IS/MND attempts to justify this conclusion by stating, “There are no sensitive receptors (e.g. residential, schools, churches, hospitals) proposed or surrounding the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur to sensitive receptors” (p. 21). 3 CalEEMod User Guide, pp. 2, 9, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ 4 CalEEMod User Guide, pp. 7, 13, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ (A key feature of the CalEEMod program is the “remarks” feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a “user defined” value. These remarks are included in the report.) 5 See mitigation measures listed in section titled “Additional Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions” on p. 8 of this comment letter. These measures would effectively reduce construction-related ROG and NOx emissions, as well as DPM emissions. 6 This justification for failing to conduct a quantified construction and operational HRA, however, is incorrect for several reasons. First, the IS/MND states that “there are no sensitive receptors” near the Project site, however this is entirely incorrect. According to Google Earth, there are residential units approximately 263 meters from the Project site that will be affected by Project construction and operation. As a result, a health risk should have been conducted by the ZEISS Center IS/MND in order to assess the impact that Project emissions will have on these receptors. Second, the omission of a proper HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct health risk assessments in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.6 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of a health risk assessment. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM from the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over the Project’s 664-day construction period.7 The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.8 Once construction is complete, Project operation will generate truck trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR). The IS/MND does not provide the expected lifetime of the Project, but we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years if not more. Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health risk impacts from Project construction and operation should have been evaluated by the IS/MND. These recommendations reflect the most recent health risk assessment policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from construction and operation should be included in a revised CEQA evaluation for the Project. In an effort to determine the risk associated with construction and operational DPM emissions, we prepared a screening-level health risk assessment. The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate that DPM emissions generated over the course of Project construction and operation may result in a significant health risk impact. As of 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends AERSCREEN as the leading air dispersion model, due to improvements in simulating local meteorological conditions based on simple 6 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html 7 The MND and DEIR fail to disclose the duration of the Project’s construction period. Therefore, we relied upon the CalEEMod default construction phase lengths based on the size of the Project to estimate the Project’s health- related impact. 8 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-18 7 input parameters.9 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA10 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (CAPCOA)11 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project’s construction impact to sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from SWAPE’s annual CalEEMod model output files. According to Google Earth, the closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 263 meters from the Project site. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the infantile stage of life. SWAPE’s annual CalEEMod model output files, attached to this letter for reference, indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 450 pounds of DPM over the approximately 664-day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation. 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ቀ 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑ቁ = 450 𝑙𝑏𝑠 664 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 × 453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑙𝑏 × 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 × 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 =𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟓𝟓𝟑 𝒈/𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.003553 grams per second (g/s). The CalEEMod model’s annual emissions indicate that operational emissions will generate approximately 153 pounds of DPM per year over a 28.2-year operational period. Applying the same equation used to estimate the operational DPM emission rate, we estimate the following emission rate for Project operation. 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ቀ 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑ቁ = 153 𝑙𝑏𝑠 365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 × 453.6 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑙𝑏 × 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 24 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 × 1 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 3,600 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 =𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟐𝟎𝟏 𝒈/𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.002201 g/s. Construction and operation was simulated as a 11.36-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 265 meters by 174 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operation equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plum dispersion upon release. A rural meteorological setting was selected to model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. 9 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 10 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 11 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf 8 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annual average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the sing-hour concentration by 10%.12 For example, for the Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR) the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 14.38 µg/m 3 DPM at approximately 250 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annual average concentration of 1.438 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration at the MEIR estimated by AERSCREEN is approximately 0.8911 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 250 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annual average concentration of 0.08911 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. We calculated the excess cancer risk for each sensitive receptor for infant receptors using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the BAAQMD. Consistent with the construction schedule proposed by the IS/MND, the annual average concentration for construction was used for the first 1.8 years of the infantile stage of life (0-2 years). The annual average concentration for operation was used for the remaining 30-year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the infantile stage of life (0-2 years), the child stage of like (2 to 16 years), and adult stages of life (16 to 30 years). Consistent with OEHHA guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.13 According to the updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life (infant) and should be multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.14 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below. The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR) Activity Duration (years) Concentration (µg/m3) Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) ASF Cancer Risk Construction 1.80 1.438 1090 10 4.3E-04 Operation 0.20 0.08911 1090 10 2.9E-06 Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 4.3E-04 Operation 14.00 0.08911 572 3 3.2E-05 Child Exposure Duration 14.00 Child Exposure 3.2E-05 Operation 14.00 0.08911 261 1 4.9E-06 12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf 13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 14 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 9 Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 Adult Exposure 4.9E-06 Lifetime Exposure Duration 30.00 Lifetime Exposure 4.65E-04 The excess cancer risk to adults, children and infants at a sensitive receptor located approximately 250 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation is approximately 4.9, 32, and 430 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 465 in one million. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the infantile stage of life to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The infantile, child, and lifetime cancer risks all greatly exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. It should be noted that our analysis represents a screening-level health risk assessment, which is known to be more conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.15 The purpose of a screening- level health risk assessment, however, is to determine if a more refined health risk assessment needs to be conducted. If the results of a screening-level health risk are above applicable thresholds, then the Project needs to conduct a more refined health risk assessment that is more representative of site specific concentrations. Our screening-level health risk assessment demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. As a result, a refined health risk assessment must be prepared to examine the air quality impacts generated by Project construction and operation using site-specific meteorology. A DEIR must be prepared to include an additional refined health risk assessment to further evaluate the Project’s health risk impact from DPM emissions, and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions Our health risk assessment demonstrates that Project construction-related DPM emissions would result in a significant health risk impact. Therefore, additional mitigation measures must be identified and incorporated in a Project-specific DEIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants, such as particulate matter.16 Diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) is a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion, and is emitted by on-road vehicles and by off-road construction equipment. Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions. Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures 15 http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf p. 1-5 16http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 10 The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (“NEDC”) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: 17  All diesel onroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines that meet EPA 2007 onroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA18 or the California Air Resources Board (CARB)19 to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent.  All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent.  All diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days must have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emission standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent for engines 50 horse power (hp) and greater and by a minimum of 20 percent for engines less than 50 hp.  All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend20 approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less. Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA’s newer standards is limited.21 Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.22 These actions include but are not limited to:  Repowering equipment (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, cleaner engines and leaving the body of the equipment intact). Engine repower may be a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy when a vehicle or machine has a long useful life and the cost of the engine does not approach the cost of the entire vehicle or machine. Examples of good potential replacement candidates include marine vessels, locomotives, and large construction machines.23 Older diesel vehicles or machines can be repowered with newer diesel engines or in some cases with engines that operate on alternative fuels (see section “Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment” for details). The original engine is taken out of service and a new engine with 17 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf 18 For EPA’s list of verified technology: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/verification/verif-list.htm 19 For CARB’s list of verified technology: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm 20 Biodiesel lends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf 21 http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf 22 http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf 23 http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/technologies/engines.htm 11 reduced emission characteristics is installed. Significant emission reductions can be achieved, depending on the newer engine and the vehicle or machine’s ability to accept a more modern engine and emission control system. It should be noted, however, that newer engines or higher tier engines are not necessarily cleaner engines, so it is important that the Project Applicant check the actual emission standard level of the current (existing) and new engines to ensure the repower product is reducing emissions for PM10. 24  Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards. Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders. Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.25 Replacements often require some re-engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically there are benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.26 Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment PM emissions from alternatively-fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit devices for engine exhaust after-treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation.27 It should be noted that actual emissions reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures28 report also proposes the use of electric and/or hybrid construction equipment as a way to mitigate criteria pollutant emissions, such as particulate matter. When construction equipment is powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion are replaced with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment. Furthermore, when construction equipment is powered by hybrid-electric drives, emissions from fuel combustion are also greatly reduced and criteria air pollutants would be 100% reduced for equipment running on electricity. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation29 and Komptech USA30, 24 Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA): Technologies, Fleets and Projects Information, available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100CVIS.PDF?Dockey=P100CVIS.PDF 25 National Clean Diesel Campaign, p. 19 available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017- 02/documents/fy17-state-program-guide-2017-02.pdf 26 Cleaner Diesels: Low Cost Ways to Reduce Emissions from Construction Equipment, p. 29 available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/cleaner-diesels-low-cost-ways-to-reduce- emissions-from-construction-equipment.pdf 27 https://www.epa.gov/verified-diesel-tech/learn-about-verified-technologies-clean-diesel 28 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 29 Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at: http://www.petersoncorp.com/wp- content/uploads/peterson_electric_grinders1.pdf 12 which specialize in the mechanical processing equipment like grinders and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid-electric drives is also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillar31. For example, Caterpillar reports that during an 8-hour shift, its D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional dozer while achieving a 10.3 percent increase in productivity. The D7E model burns 6.2 gallons per hour compared to a conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.32 Fuel usage and savings are dependent on the make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should calculate project-specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per hour. Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures33 report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring hour meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment. Specifically, prior to the construction of a Project the contractor should submit a certified list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. 34 The list should include the following: 35  Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.  Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.  For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date. Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures36 report recommends that the Project Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the 30 Komptech Green Efficiency Brochure, available at: https://www.komptech.com/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1499460496&hash=629664449e39544 77f6857f98ad1d73f8f2ec20d&file=fileadmin/komptech/brochures/Green_Efficiency_eng_2015.pdf 31 http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-generation.html 32 http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C811572 33 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 34 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf 35 USEPA’s Construction Fleet Inventory Guide is a useful tool in identifying the information required. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/construction-fleet-inventory-guide.pdf 36 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 13 equipment. Specifically, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a report prior to bringing said equipment on site that includes: 37  Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.  The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, and EPA/CARB verification number/level.  The Certification Statement38 signed and printed on the contractor’s letterhead. Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a monthly report that, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: 39  Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.  Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.  Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: o Source of supply o Quantity of fuel o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight). In addition to those measures, we also recommend that the City require the Applicant to implement the following mitigation measures, called “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,”40 that are recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (“SMAQMD”): 1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency and District a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project.  The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment.  The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman.  This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment.  The District’s Equipment List Form can be used to submit this information. 37 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf 38 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf The NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A, p. 10. 39 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/nedc-model-contract-sepcification.pdf 40 http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControlFINAL10-2013.pdf 14  The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. 2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency and District demonstrating that the heavy-duty off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.  This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory.  Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low- emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available.  The District’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction. 3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel-powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour.  Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately. Non-compliant equipment will be documented and a summary provided to the lead agency and District monthly.  A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly.  A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. 4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or regulations. When combined together, these measures offer a cost-effective way to incorporate lower-emitting equipment into the Project’s construction fleet, which subsequently, reduces particulate matter emissions released during Project construction. A DEIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce construction emissions. Furthermore, the Project Applicant needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval to ensure that the Project’s construction-related emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. 15 Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2003 Cisco Systems IS/MND did not evaluate GHG impacts because during preparation of both the EIR and IS/MND, there was no requirement under CEQA to consider a project’s emissions or its impact on global climate change. Therefore, the IS/MND determines that the proposed Project does not need to conduct an analysis of the Project’s GHG impact because although the issue of climate change and GHGs was known prior to certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the Cisco Systems IS/MND in 2001, it was not analyzed in either report, and that therefore, the issue of GHG emissions does not constitute new information that must be analyzed any further (p. 41). According to the IS/MND, “The topic of the project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 or Cisco Systems IS/MND in 2001... Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is not required to be analyzed under the CEQA standards for supplemental or subsequent EIRs unless it constitutes ‘new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete ‘ (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a)(3))” (p. 41). Furthermore, the IS/MND states, “In the early and mid-2000s, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the Cisco Systems IS/MND in 2003. Under CEQA standard, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project’s impacts on this issue is required under CEQA” (p. 41). The City’s purported justification for failing to conduct a greenhouse gas analysis based on the conclusions of prior reports is unsupported because CEQA expressly requires an analysis of a project’s GHG emissions. Starting in March 2010, consideration of GHGs was formalized in CEQA Guidelines, requiring agencies to consider the effect of GHG emissions to the extent which a project increased or decreased GHG emissions.41 Because the IS/MND for the proposed Project was prepared after this requirement was set in place, CEQA Guidelines require that the Project’s GHG impacts be evaluated; therefore, a GHG analysis should have been prepared in order to adequately evaluate the impact the Project’s emissions would have on global climate change. Furthermore, since the IS/MND for the proposed Project did not prepare any sort of GHG analysis in which the Project’s quantified emissions are compared to significance thresholds or compliance with local, regional, and statewide regulations, there is no way of knowing the magnitude of the Project’s GHG impact and if mitigation needs to be 41 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.; see Pub. Res. Code § 21083.05. 16 implemented in order to reduce this impact. As such, the Project should not be approved until a proper analysis of the Project’s GHG impact has been prepared. Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with Executive Order S-30-15 and Senate Bill 32 The IS/MND’s lack of a proper GHG analysis also fails to demonstrate consistency with, and fails to take into account, the ambitious GHG reduction goals set by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in Executive Order S-3-05 and set by Governor Jerry Brown in Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-0542, establishing statewide GHG emissions targets to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020; and reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on September 8, 2016 Governor Jerry Brown approved Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which requires the state of California to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.43 SB 32 went into effect January 1, 2017, nearly a year before the IS/MND for the proposed Project was drafted. Therefore, the IS/MND should have evaluated the Project’s level of compliance with the emissions reduction goals set forth in SB 32. Executive Order S-30-15 and SB 32 were not available when the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2003 Cisco Systems IS/MND were prepared. Therefore, the reduction goals set forth by this Executive Order and SB 32 constitute as new information that was not available at the time these documents were prepared. Thus, the IS/MND should have evaluated the Project’s level of compliance with the emissions reduction goals set forth in Executive Order S-30-15 and SB 32, as these regulations were available when the IS/MND for the proposed Project was drafted. By failing to demonstrate consistency with the reduction targets set forth by Executive Order B-30-15 for 2030 and 2050, the Project may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As a result, the Project may have a potentially significant impact that was not previously addressed in the IS/MND, and as such, a DEIR should be prepared. SB 3244 requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030. 1990 statewide GHG emissions are estimated to be approximately 431 million MTCO2e (MMTCO2e).45 Therefore, by 2030 California will be required to reduce statewide emissions by 172 MMTCO 2e (431 x 40%), which results in a statewide limit on GHG emissions of 259 MMTCO2e. 2020 “business-as-usual” levels are estimated to be approximately 509 MMTCO2e.46 Therefore, in order to successfully reach the 2030 statewide goal of 259 MMTCO2e, California would have to reduce its emissions by 49 percent below the “business-as-usual” levels. Additionally, by 2050 California will be required to reduce statewide emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Therefore, by 2050 California will be required to reduce statewide emissions by by 345 MMTCO 2e (431 x 80%), which results in a statewide limit on GHG emissions of 86 MMTCO 2e, as a result the 42 https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=1861 43 “The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update.” CARB, January 20, 2017, available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf 44 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32 45 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm 46 http://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CA_CapReport_Mar2015.pdf 17 reduction goals set forth in Executive Order S-30-15. Thus, in order to successfully reach the 2050 statewide goal of 86 MMTCO2e, California would have to reduce its emissions by 83 percent below the BAU levels. This 49 percent and 83 percent reduction target should be considered as a threshold of significance against which to measure Project impacts. Because the proposed Project is unlikely to be redeveloped again prior to 2030, the 2030 and 2050 goals are applicable to any evaluation of the Project's impacts. A DEIR should be prepared to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with these reduction measures specified in SB 32 and Executive Order S-30-15. Specifically, the Project should demonstrate, at a minimum, a reduction of 49 percent below and 83 percent below “business-as-usual” levels in 2030 and 2050, respectively. It should be noted, however, that this reduction percentage is applicable to statewide emissions, which as described in the recent California Supreme Court case ruling Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Newhall Land and Farming Company 2015 Cal. LEXIS 9478 (Newhall Case),47 is not directly applicable to a project-level analysis. As a result, an additional analysis would need to be conducted to translate the new statewide targets into a project-specific threshold against which Project GHG emissions can be compared. A DEIR should be prepared to quantify any reductions expected to be achieved by mitigation measures, shown by substantial evidence that such measures will be effective and should demonstrate how these measures will reduce the emissions below the new 2030 and 2050 significance thresholds. By failing to analyze or require mitigation for the Project’s GHG emissions, the City is failing to do its part to reduce the impacts of climate change. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Hadley Nolan 47 http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S217763.PDF Scott Cashen, M.S.—Independent Biological Resources Consultant 3264 Hudson Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 1 February 12, 2018 Ms. Christina M. Caro Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Comments on the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Zeiss Innovation Center Project Dear Ms. Caro: This letter contains my comments on the City of Dublin’s (“City”) Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (“IS/MND”) for the Zeiss Innovation Center Project (“Project”). Carl Zeiss, Inc. (“Applicant”) proposes to construct two buildings with associated parking, landscaping, and infrastructure on 11.36 acres of land in the City of Dublin. I am an environmental biologist with 25 years of professional experience in wildlife ecology and natural resources management. I have served as a biological resources expert for over 100 projects in California. My experience and scope of work in this regard has included assisting various clients with evaluations of biological resource issues, reviewing environmental compliance documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and submitting written comments in response to CEQA and NEPA documents. My work has included the preparation of written and oral testimony for the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and Federal courts. My educational background includes a B.S. in Resource Management from the University of California at Berkeley, and a M.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Pennsylvania State University. A true and correct copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached hereto. The comments herein are based on my review of the environmental documents prepared for the Project, a review of scientific literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur in the Project area, consultations with other biological resource experts, and the knowledge and experience I have acquired during my 25-year career in the field of natural resources management. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Special-Status Branchiopods The Project site lies within the “Livermore Vernal Pool Region.”1 Ephemeral pools in the Livermore Vernal Pool Region provide habitat for special-status branchiopods, including the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the California linderiella, which has a NatureServe Rank of G2G3 S2S3.2 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Although the Project site contains several seasonal wetlands, Appendix B to the Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”) concludes that there is “no potential” for the vernal pool fairy shrimp to occur at the Project site because: “[t]he Project Area does not contain any vernal pool features that are required to support the species.” The BRA’s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence and it contradicts readily available scientific information on vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Despite the moniker, vernal pool fairy shrimp are not limited to “vernal pools;” they also occur in vernal pool-like habitats such as seasonal wetlands and pools.3 Indeed, vernal pool fairy shrimp occur in a wide range of habitats, including degraded or otherwise poor- quality habitats such as pools created by tire tracks and roadside ditches.4 As a result, the seasonal wetlands at the Project site provide potential habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The BRA compounds the errors in Appendix B by erroneously contending, based in part on errors of fact, that the presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp at the Project site is unlikely: The combination of historical development, surrounding development and lack of occurrences within the vicinity of the Project Area make it unlikely that this species would be present within the Project Area. The Project Area was partially developed prior to 1993 when the site was graded and several roads were developed (Google Earth 2017). Such types of development are incompatible with VPFS habitat and destroy or adversely modify habitat for VPFS (USFWS 2006). Additionally, dense urban development surrounding the Project Area prevents natural flooding or hydraulic connection that could support or introduce VPFS. Lastly, the nearest occurrence of this species is more than seven miles from the Project Area (CDFW 2017b). Therefore, given the level of development within the Project Area, level of surrounding development and distance to known occurrences, this species is unlikely to be present.5 These are specious arguments for several reasons. First, the Google Earth imagery cited in the BRA provides no evidence that the site was ever graded (Figure 1). USGS topographic maps 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Figure III-6. 2 G2G3 = high to moderate risk of global extinction. S2S3 = high to moderate risk of statewide extinction. 3 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4 Ibid. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. p. II-197. 5 BRA, p. 28. [Emphasis added]. 3 indicate the site has always been flat.6 Although “unimproved dirt” or “light-duty” roads crossed a portion of the site, those roads were abandoned or removed between 1980 and 2002 (Figure 2).7 Nevertheless, ground disturbance activities do not preclude the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp. For example, in Contra Costa County, over 100 vernal pool fairy shrimp were documented in a “non-vegetated depression in dirt road along tracks—partially scraped by bulldozer,” and that had “routine vehicle traffic through [the] area.”8 Second, ground disturbance activities that occurred on a portion of the Project site 16 or more years ago are irrelevant to the fact that the site currently contains seasonal wetlands. Scientific evidence indicates those wetlands provide potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (and other special-status branchiopods).9 Third, according to the BRA, some of the wetlands at the site are naturally occurring depressions (i.e., were never eliminated by disturbance).10 However, the potential for special- status branchiopods to occur in the wetlands cannot be eliminated even if all of the wetlands were created by anthropogenic disturbance. Ephemeral pool invertebrates can rapidly colonize new pools, including pools that are artificially created.11 Similarly, ground disturbance activities (e.g., grading) that altered naturally occurring pools does not eliminate the potential for special- status branchiopods, because these species can live in sediments as cysts (without water) for decades and possibly centuries.12 Fourth, urban development surrounding the Project Area does not prevent natural flooding or hydraulic connection that could support vernal pool fairy shrimp (or other special-status branchiopods). Based on Google Earth imagery, the site has contained wetlands since at least 2003, despite concurrent or pre-existing development of the surrounding properties (Figures 3 through 6). Moreover, the wetlands have existed long enough to support plants often found in mesic (wetland) environments.13 This indicates the wetlands have not been graded for several years—which is long enough for vernal pool fairy shrimp to colonize (or recolonize) the Project 6 U.S. Geological Survey. Dublin, CA [7.5-minute topographic map]. 1953, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1980, and 2015. Available at: <https://store.usgs.gov/>. 7 Ibid. 8 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Occurrence No. 212. 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. pp. II-191 through II-203. 10 BRA, p. 17. 11 Incagnone G, F Marrone, R Barone, L Robba, L Naselli-Flores. 2015. How do freshwater organisms cross the ‘‘dry ocean’’? A review on passive dispersal and colonization processes with a special focus on temporary ponds. Hydrobiologia 750:103–123. 12 Belk, D. 1998. Global status and trends in ephemeral pool invertebrate conservation: implications for California fairy shrimp. Pages 147-150 in: C. W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren, Jr., and R. Ornduff (editors) Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 13 Wetland Delineation, Appendix B. 4 site following disturbance (even if grading was capable of eliminating branchiopod cysts).14 Fifth, development surrounding the Project Area does not preclude the introduction of vernal pool fairy shrimp (or other special-status branchiopods) because ephemeral pool invertebrates are easily transported by several physical and biological vectors that are independent of surrounding land use (i.e., beyond overland flow).15 These include transport by wind, birds, other vertebrates, and various human activities.16 For example, numerous studies have shown that viable cysts can survive passage through the digestive tract of waterfowl, as well as attach to feathers or feet of wading birds, thus promoting long-distance dispersal among pools.17 As a result, in listing the species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that “environmental requirements, not dispersal, is likely the limiting factor in the distribution of the fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp.”18 The BRA provides no evidence that the wetlands at the Project site lack the environmental requirements needed to support vernal pool fairy shrimp. Sixth, the argument that the site’s “distance to known occurrences” makes fairy shrimp occurrence unlikely is misleading and unfounded. The vernal pool fairy shrimp naturally occurs in discrete (isolated) populations throughout its geographic range.19 Some of these populations are located many (up to 15) miles away from the next nearest population.20 As a result of these errors, the IS/MND fails entirely to analyze the potentially significant Project impacts to the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp. 14 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA, p. 5. Available at: <http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/images/Graphics/VPFS_5-yr%20review%20CNO%20FINAL%2027Sept07.pdf>. 15 Incagnone G, F Marrone, R Barone, L Robba, L Naselli-Flores. 2015. How do freshwater organisms cross the ‘‘dry ocean’’? A review on passive dispersal and colonization processes with a special focus on temporary ponds. Hydrobiologia 750:103–123. See also Maquire B Jr. 1963. The Passive Dispersal of Small Aquatic Organmisms and Their Colonization of Isolated Bodies of Water. Ecological Monographs 33(2):161-185. 16 Ibid. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. p. II-198. 17 Figuerola J, A Green. 2002. Dispersal of aquatic organisms by waterbirds: a review of past research and priorities for future studies. Freshwater Biology 47:483–494. See also Figuerola J, A Green, T Michot. 2005. Invertebrate eggs can fly: evidence of waterfowl mediated gene-flow in aquatic invertebrates. American Naturalist 165:274–280. See also Proctor VW, CR Malone, VL DeVlaming. 1967. Dispersal of aquatic organisms: viability of disseminules recovered from captive killdeer. Ecology 48:672-676. 18 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and threatened status for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Fed Regist. 59(180):48136-48153. 19 Ibid. 20 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 5 Figure 1. Google Earth image of Project site (yellow polygon) in 1993. Contrary to the BRA’s claim, the image shows no signs of grading. 6 Figure 2. Google Earth image of Project site in 2002. Roads within the site have been abandoned or removed. 7 Figure 3. Google Earth image of Project site in May 2003. Black arrows point to visible signs of ponded water (wetlands). 8 Figure 4. Google Earth image of Project site in April 2005. Black arrows point to visible signs of ponded water (wetlands). The shape of the wetlands in the images correspond with the wetlands depicted in the Applicant’s wetlands delineation report. 9 Figure 5. Google Earth image of Project site in March 2010. Black arrows point to visible signs of ponded water (wetlands). 10 Figure 6. Google Earth image of Project site in January 2013. Black arrows point to visible signs of ponded water (wetlands). California Linderiella (formerly California fairy shrimp) According to the BRA, the California linderiella is “unlikely” to occur at the Project site because “[t]he Project area does not contain any vernal pool features that are required to support the species.”21 The BRA fails to provide any evidence or analysis supporting this conclusion. California linderiella occupy the same types of habitat as the vernal pool fairy shrimp,22 and have been detected in seasonal pools comparable to those found on the Project site.23 As a result, the California linderiella has the potential to occur at the Project site. Compliance with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Mitigation incorporated into the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) and Specific Plan requires species-specific surveys for special-status invertebrates in appropriate wetland habitats prior to approval of specific projects in the Reduced Planning Area (which encompasses 21 BRA, Appendix B. 22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. pp. II-214 through II-220. 23 E.g., See EOndx #94421 in California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 11 the Project site).24 The GPA does not relieve an applicant from conducting those species- specific surveys if its consultant arbitrarily concludes special-status invertebrates are “unlikely” to occur. As a result, species-specific surveys 25 for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella are required prior to approval of the Project. Until those surveys have been conducted, direct and indirect impacts to the site’s wetlands represent unexamined, potentially significant impacts to both the vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella. Burrowing Owl The IS/MND states: “[a]s determined in the project site survey conducted on April 12, 2017 by WRA, Inc., the project area is not currently inhabited by Western burrowing owls.”26 The City does not have basis for this statement because WRA did not conduct the protocol-level surveys needed to provide reliable information on the presence of burrowing owls at the Project site.27 Indeed, the BRA acknowledges: “[t]he site visits conducted for the wetland delineation and the burrowing owl survey do not constitute a protocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species.”28 Burrowing owls can be difficult to detect due to their cryptic coloration, extensive use of burrows, and tendency to flush (fly away) when approached.29 As a result, burrowing owl researchers and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) have concluded that four independent surveys are necessary to provide reliable information on the presence of burrowing owls.30 Data from the four surveys (termed “detection surveys” in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) are essential to avoiding, minimizing, and properly mitigating the direct and indirect effects of the Project on burrowing owls. The IS/MND requires the Applicant to conduct two preconstruction surveys no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities at the Project site.31 Although CDFW guidelines recommend “take avoidance” (i.e., pre-construction) surveys, the guidelines make it clear that those surveys are not a substitute for the four “detection surveys” required to assess Project impacts and formulate appropriate mitigation.32 Because the Applicant’s consultant failed to implement the CDFW survey protocol, the City lacks the information needed to fully disclose and evaluate Project impacts to burrowing owls, and perhaps more importantly, to ensure 24 City of Dublin. 1993. Addendum to Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. p. 22. 25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Survey Guidelines for Large Listed Branchiopods. 24 pp. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/survey-protocols- guidelines/Documents/VernalPoolBranchiopodSurveyGuidelines_20150531.pdf>. 26 IS/MND, p. 26. 27 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Appendix D. 28 BRA, p. 14. 29 Klute DS, LW Ayers, MT Green, WH Howe, SL Jones, JA Shaffer, SR Sheffield, TS Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western Burrowing Owl in the United States. Bio Tech Pub FWS/BTP- R6001-2003. Washington: US Fish and Wildlife. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/migbirds/species/birds/wbo/Western%20Burrowing%20Owlrev73003a.pdf>. 30 See Appendix D In: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 31 IS/MND, p. 26. 32 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 12 effective mitigation. The need to establish the baseline population of burrowing owls on a site prior to assessing impacts and mitigation measures is emphasized in CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (“Staff Report”), which states: Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be disturbed by a project or activity will enable the Department, reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.33 It is not possible to effectively assess the extent of Project impacts on burrowing owls until surveys that adhere to CDFW guidelines have been conducted. As a result, the City must require the Applicant to conduct the protocol surveys described in CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report, and the results of those surveys must be made available to the public in a revised CEQA document so that they can be thoroughly vetted by the public, resource agencies, and decision makers during the CEQA review process. Wetland Functions and Values The IS/MND and reports provided by WRA fail to disclose and describe the functions and values provided by the wetlands at the Project site. Instead, the IS/MND improperly defers evaluation of the wetland functions and values to a wetland mitigation plan, which would be prepared after the CEQA review process terminates.34 This precludes the ability to understand Project impacts, including potentially significant indirect impacts to wetlands that would be “avoided” during construction of the Project. IMPACTS Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl populations have declined dramatically in the San Francisco Bay Area (“SFBA”) since the 1992 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR was prepared.35 The species has been extirpated, or nearly extirpated, from six SFBA counties (Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa 33 Ibid, p. 6. 34 IS/MND, p. 31. 35 Wilkerson RL and RB Siegel. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10:1-36. See also Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. Available at: <http://www.calenv.com/California_Environmental_Services/Publications_files/Townsend%20and%20Lenihan_Bu rrowing%20Owl.pdf>. See also Alameda Creek Alliance. 2014 Mar 21. Lawsuit Challenges Dublin Development That Will Evict Burrowing Owls [Press Release]. Available at: <http://www.alamedacreek.org/newsroom/pdf/press%20releases/2014/Camp%20Parks%20PR%203-21-14.pdf>. 13 Cruz, Sonoma, and San Mateo).36 Although burrowing owls were once abundant throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties, they are now primarily limited to the eastern portions of those counties.37 By 2003, only two “large” breeding colonies of burrowing owls remained in Alameda County: one in the Altamont Hills, and one in the Camp Parks area. The Project site provides habitat for burrowing owls in the “Camp Parks” population (Figure 7), which is the only breeding population remaining in the Livermore-Amador Valley.38 The IS/MND fails to disclose this information. It also fails to analyze how the loss of burrowing owl habitat from the Project site may affect the Camp Parks burrowing owl population. Instead, it jumps to the conclusion that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would mitigate impacts to burrowing owls to a less-than-significant level—even though Mitigation Measure BIO-1 does not provide any specific information on how BIO-1 would, or could, mitigate significant impacts to the Camp Parks burrowing owl population. 36 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. Available at: <http://www.calenv.com/California_Environmental_Services/Publications_files/Townsend%20and%20Lenihan_Bu rrowing%20Owl.pdf>. See also California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 37 Ibid. 38 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. Available at: <http://www.calenv.com/California_Environmental_Services/Publications_files/Townsend%20and%20Lenihan_Bu rrowing%20Owl.pdf>. See also Alameda Creek Alliance. 2014 Mar 21. Lawsuit Challenges Dublin Development That Will Evict Burrowing Owls [Press Release]. Available at: <http://www.alamedacreek.org/newsroom/pdf/press%20releases/2014/Camp%20Parks%20PR%203-21-14.pdf>. 14 Figure 7. CNDDB records (yellow polygons) depicting the “Camp Parks” burrowing owl population. Black arrow points to the Project site. 15 Cumulative Impacts According to the cumulative impacts analysis section of the IS/MND: the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.39 There is no factual basis for this conclusion. Data indicate the Camp Parks burrowing owl population is rapidly declining due to the cumulative effects of development in the Camp Parks area. Specifically, 8 to 10 pairs of burrowing owls nested within the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (“PRFTA”) between 2008 and 2014.40 However, in 2014, commercial and residential development authorized by the City began in a portion of the PRFTA that had been transferred to the City by the military. Surveys conducted in 2016 suggest only one or two pairs of burrowing owls remain in the PRFTA.41 One or two pairs are incapable of sustaining the population, especially given the decline in recruitment (i.e., reproductive success) of burrowing owls at PRFTA.42 Because the Project site provides potential habitat for burrowing owls in the Camp Parks population, the loss of habitat from the Project site would further jeopardize the persistence of the Camp Parks population. Furthermore, because the Camp Parks population is one of only two breeding populations remaining in Alameda County, the loss of the Camp Parks population would significantly reduce the range of the species in the County (and the San Francisco Bay Area). This issue is exacerbated by evidence that the City has failed to ensure effective mitigation for other projects that have significantly impacted the Camp Parks population of burrowing owls.43 Thus, there is substantial evidence that the Project could substantially reduce the habitat of a wildlife species; cause a wildlife population to drop below a self-sustaining level; threaten to eliminate an animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered animal. Avian Collisions Glass associated with the Project’s buildings poses a potentially significant collision hazard to birds. The IS/MND fails to disclose, analyze, or provide mitigation for this potentially significant hazard. Collision with windows is second only to predation by domestic cats as an anthropogenic source of avian mortality.44 Klem (2009) estimated over one billion birds are killed each year due to 39 IS/MND, p. 85. 40 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. Appendix 2. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Parkins KL, SB Elbin, E Barnes. 2015. Light, Glass, and Bird–building Collisions in an Urban Park. Northeastern Naturalist 22(1):84-94. 16 collisions with clear and reflective sheet glass in the U.S. alone.45,46 Klem (2009) further estimated that between one and five percent of the total migratory population of birds in North America dies in window crashes annually.47 The visual system of birds is simply not capable of perceiving glass as a physical obstacle.48 Scientists have determined that bird mortality caused by collisions with structures is “biologically significant,”49 and that avian mortality from window collisions is contributing to population declines of special-status species and birds in general.50 Almost every type of architectural glass under the right conditions reflects the sky, clouds, or nearby trees and vegetation.51 Glass that reflects the environment presents birds with the appearance of safe routes, shelter, and possibly food ahead. However, when birds try to fly to the reflected habitat, they hit the glass. A poorly designed building can kill hundreds of birds per year.52 A few variables in particular have proven to be especially lethal to birds. As described below, the Project would possess several of those variables. 1. Buildings with reflective windows, large windows, or a high percentage of glass. Studies have shown that buildings with large windows or a high percentage of glass kill a disproportionately high number of birds.53 The exterior of the buildings associated with the proposed Project would be predominately glass.54 This would make the buildings especially hazardous to birds. 45 Klem D Jr. 2009. Avian Mortality At Windows: The Second Largest Human Source of Bird Mortality on Earth. Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 244-251. 46 Daniel Klem Jr. is an ornithologist known for his pioneering research into the mortality of birds due to glass windows. He is Sarkis Acopian Professor of Ornithology and Conservation Biology at Muhlenberg College. Dr. Klem has been publishing peer-reviewed studies on bird-window collisions since 1989. See <http://www.muhlenberg.edu/main/academics/biology/facultystaff/danielklemjr/>. 47 Klem D Jr. 2009. Avian Mortality At Windows: The Second Largest Human Source of Bird Mortality on Earth. Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 244-251. 48 Klem D Jr. 2009. Preventing Bird-Window Collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(2):314–321. 49 Longcore T, C Rich, SA Gauthreaux Jr. 2005. Scientific Basis to Establish Policy Regulating Communications Towers to Protect Migratory Birds. WT Docket No. 03-187, Federal Communications Commission Notice of Inquiry. Available at: <https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/6517288491.pdf>. 50 Klem D Jr. 2009. Preventing Bird-Window Collisions. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(2):314-321. See also Klem D Jr. 1990. Collisions Between Birds and Windows: Mortality and Prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology. 61(1):120-128. 51 San Francisco Planning Department (and references therein). 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. 42 pp. 52 Hager SB, H Trudell, KJ McKay, SM Crandall, L Mayer. 2008. Bird Density and Mortality at Windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120(3):550-564. 53 Klem D Jr, CJ Farmer, N Delacretaz, Y Gelb, PG Saenger. 2009. Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(1):126-134. See also Parkins KL, SB Elbin, E Barnes. 2015. Light, Glass, and Bird–building Collisions in an Urban Park. Northeastern Naturalist 22(1):84-94. See also Hager SB, H Trudell, KJ McKay, SM Crandall, L Mayer. 2008. Bird Density and Mortality at Windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120(3):550-564. 54 IS/MND, p. 16 and Figures 8b and 8c. 17 2. Buildings with windows located adjacent to extensive vegetation or water features. Numerous studies have provided evidence that buildings with windows adjacent to extensive vegetation or a water feature, like the proposed Project, kill numerous birds.55 In suburban areas, buildings with these features have been documented to kill an average of 30 birds per year (per building).56 This combination may be even more lethal in urban areas. Studies of Manhattan structures with large swaths of windows adjacent to large open spaces have recorded well over 100 collisions per year (per structure).57 The buildings proposed for the Project would be surrounded by trees, other vegetation, an existing wetland, a water feature, and two stormwater retention basins.58 The glass exterior of the buildings will reflect these features, which will be attractive to birds.59 This presents a hazard because birds will be deceived by the illusion of the reflected habitat, and thus when they leave the habitat features, they will perceive the reflected habitat as actual habitat and may fly into the glass.60 3. Windows adjacent to open spaces. Buildings with large windows facing an open space area are especially lethal to birds.61 The north and south sides of the building proposed for Phase 1 of the Project, and the south side of the building proposed for Phase 2, would have large expanses of glass facing, and immediately adjacent to, vegetated open spaces.62 This combination of glass in close proximity to habitat would undoubtedly result in a significant number of bird kills. 55 San Francisco Planning Department (and references therein). 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. 42 pp. See also Gelb Y, N Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and Vegetation: Primary Factors in Manhattan Bird Collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16(3):455-470. See also Klem D Jr, CJ Farmer, N Delacretaz, Y Gelb, PG Saenger. 2009. Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121(1):126-134. See also New York City Audubon Society, Inc. 2007. Bird-Safe Building Guidelines. 59 pp. Available at: <http://www.nycaudubon.org/pdf/BirdSafeBuildingGuidelines.pdf>. 56 Klem D Jr. 1990. Collisions Between Birds and Windows: Mortality and Prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology. 61(1):120-128. See also O’Connell TJ. 2001. Avian Window Strike Mortality at a Suburban Office Park. The Raven 72(2):141-149. 57 Gelb Y, N Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and Vegetation: Primary Factors in Manhattan Bird Collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16(3):455-470. 58 IS/MND, Figures 2a, 2b, 3, 7, 8b, and 8c. 59 The IS/MND requires the Project to adopt the mitigation incorporated into the Cisco Systems IS/MND. This includes the provision that “all exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare manufacture.” Despite this measure, anti- reflective technology applied to glass does not eliminate all light reflection; high reflectance can still occur. See: <http://www.suniva.com/documents/Suniva%20Reflection%20and%20Glare%20Report%20-%20Marketing%20- %20August%202012.pdf>. 60 Klem D Jr. 1990. Collisions Between Birds and Windows: Mortality and Prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology. 61(1):120-128. See also San Francisco Planning Department (and references therein). 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. 42 pp. 61 Gelb Y, N Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and Vegetation: Primary Factors in Manhattan Bird Collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16(3):455-470. See also San Francisco Planning Department (and references therein). 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. 42 pp. 62 IS/MND, Figures 2a and 2b. 18 Wetlands and Special-Status Plants Two special-status plants are known to occur at the Project site. Approximately 618 individuals of Congdon’s tarplant were observed throughout the Project site in seasonal wetlands and mesic areas. In addition, a small patch (approximately 10 square feet) of California dock was observed at the northwestern edge of the largest seasonal wetland in the central portion of the Project site. Nevertheless, the IS/MND’s impacts assessment is limited to the following statements: Congdon’s tarplant populations were observed throughout the project site, occurring in seasonal wetlands and mesic areas. California dock were also observed on-site and may be disturbed. Disturbance or removal of wetland habitat could potentially result in the loss of this special status species, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.63 The IS/MND’s analysis is vague and insufficient. Specifically, the IS/MND fails to provide an assessment of the number of Congdon’s tarplant individuals that could be directly impacted by the Project. In addition, although the IS/MND acknowledges the Project could have significant indirect impacts on Congdon’s tarplant and California dock, it fails to discuss or analyze those impacts beyond stating that the plants may be “disturbed.”64 The IS/MND does not identify how the plants may be “disturbed,” nor does it analyze other potentially significant indirect impacts commonly associated with development adjacent to wetland (or mesic) habitats (e.g., changes to natural hydrology, invasive species, erosion, and contamination).65 The timing, frequency, and duration of inundation are critical to the survival of seasonal pool species. Currently, the Project site is almost entirely pervious surfaces.66 Development of the Project would convert approximately 8.1 acres of these pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces.67 This includes construction of an impervious pathway within the buffer surrounding the preserved seasonal wetland.68 Based on this information, the “drainage management system” described in the IS/MND, and the schematic of the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan,69 the Project would have substantial effects on the site’s hydrology.70 This could effectively change seasonal wetland functions (e.g., change from seasonal to perennial/permanent wetlands) and floral composition (e.g., community changes from annual herbs to emergent macrophytes), which in turn may lead to the extirpation of Congdon’s tarplant and California dock.71 63 IS/MND, p. 28. 64 Ibid. 65 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. pp. I-16 though -28. 66 IS/MND, p. 6. 67 Ibid. 68 IS/MND, p. 4. 69 IS/MND, Figure 7. 70 IS/MND, pp. 6 and 7. 71 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. p. I-21. 19 Mitigation Performance Standards The IS/MND fails to establish specific performance standards for the proposed mitigation. Instead, it defers the formulation of performance standards to the various mitigation plans (e.g., Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan, Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, and Wetland Mitigation Plan), which have also been deferred. CEQA prohibits a lead agency from deferring the specific performance standards that will be used to evaluate the success of mitigation incorporated into an EIR or MND. Furthermore, the IS/MND’s failure to establish performance standards precludes the public and resource agencies from being able to assess the value of the City’s proposed mitigation, and in turn, the likelihood that the mitigation would reduce the Project’s significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Burrowing Owl Surveys The IS/MND requires a preconstruction survey no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and a second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. Two preconstruction surveys during an undetermined time of year do not provide reliable information on burrowing owls that may be impacted by a project. As discussed above, the two “take avoidance” (preconstruction) surveys described in CDFW’s Staff Report are not intended to serve as a substitute for the four “detection” surveys needed to identify presence, assess impacts, and formulate appropriate mitigation. Rather, the “take avoidance” surveys are intended to confirm no new owls have colonized the site since completion of the “detection” surveys. An additional problem with the City’s approach for obtaining baseline data is that it is based on the Applicant’s timing, rather than the timing needed to establish the ecological value of the site to burrowing owls. Many burrowing owls migrate seasonally, at least at a local scale. As a result, preconstruction surveys that are conducted during the non-breeding season would fail to detect individuals that breed at the site. This would lead to the false conclusion that the Project would have no impact on the species, and thus, compensatory mitigation is not required (per the conditions established in the IS/MND). Buffers The IS/MND requires the Applicant to avoid impacts to burrows occupied by burrowing owls, if feasible. The IS/MND, however, fails to establish any standards for the mitigation, including the minimum buffer sizes that need to be implemented for various Project activities. The 250-foot buffer distance suggested in MM BIO-3 is inconsistent with CDFW guidelines, which indicate buffers should be 100 to 500 meters (328 to 1,640 feet), depending on the time of year and level of disturbance.72 72 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012 Mar 7. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 9. 20 Mitigation Plan The IS/MND defers critical analysis of the mitigation needed to mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls. Specifically, it defers identifying the compensatory mitigation ratio; acceptable mitigation location and mechanism (e.g., habitat acquisition, purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, in-lieu fee, etc.); site protection methods; financial assurances; performance standards; and monitoring requirements. Instead, the IS/MND proposes to allow these critical mitigation components to be established in a subsequent Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, which would be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, but would not be presented to the public prior to Project approval. This effectively robs the public from being able to submit comments on fundamental aspects of the mitigation strategy. This is extremely important because neither the CDFW nor the City has an effective oversight approach that ensures compensatory mitigation is occurring.73 The IS/MND fails to identify a mitigation ratio, and instead proposes to allow CDFW to approve a habitat compensation ratio following Project approval. CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation indicates that a ratio of at least 1:1 is required to mitigate impacts to burrowing owl habitat. However, a 1:1 ratio is not likely to be sufficient to mitigate impacts below a level of significance in this case due to the rapid decline of the Camp Parks population and the limited availability of compensation habitat to support that population. Accordingly, mitigation imposed by the City should require adherence to the regional-specific Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”). The EACCS requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl habitat that is within 0.5 mile of a burrowing owl nest used within the previous three years. In addition, the EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 3:1 (3.5:1 if the mitigation site is in a different core area).74 As a result, the City needs to establish the mitigation ratio required for the Project, and it cannot assume that a ratio less than 3:1 would mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level unless it provides scientific analysis justifying that determination. Because the IS/MND does not contain mitigation that adheres to the standards in the EACCS, and because the IS/MND fails to ensure that mitigation would have any benefit to the Camp Parks burrowing owl population, the Project’s impacts to the burrowing owl remain potentially significant. Special-Status Plants The IS/MND requires an additional survey for Congdon’s tarplant and other rare plants within the construction zone. It then states: “[i]f no special-status plant species are found, then the proposed project would not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.” The City has no basis for this approach because it already knows that Congdon’s tarplant occurs in the construction zone, and it has already determined that the Project would have significant impacts on that species. As WRA’s Rare Plant Survey Report acknowledges: “the failure to locate a known rare plant occurrence during one field season does not constitute evidence that this plant occurrence no 73 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. 43 pp. 74 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. p. 3-65 and Table 3-10. 21 longer exists.”75 This is especially true for annual herbs such as Congdon’s tarplant, which may not be evident in some years due to environmental conditions (e.g., drought). Thus, the City’s clause for foregoing compensatory mitigation if Congdon’s tarplant is not detected during a subsequent survey results in significant, unmitigated impacts to the species. Exclusion Zones The IS/MND indicates: “[a]ctivity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established in accordance with regulatory agency standards prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site.” The IS/MND fails to identify these “regulatory agency standards,” nor am I aware of any agencies that have established standards for exclusion zones around special-status plant species. As a result, the IS/MND’s mitigation is uncertain and unenforceable. Indirect Impacts The IS/MND and BRA acknowledge that the Project may have significant indirect impacts on Congdon’s tarplant, California dock, and potentially other special-status plants.76 The IS/MND fails to incorporate any mitigation for these impacts, which have the potential to eliminate special-status plants from the Project site. Direct Impacts The IS/MND incorporates two strategies for mitigating the Project’s direct impacts on special- status plants: (1) harvesting and planting of seeds collected from Congdon’s tarplant and California dock plants at the Project site, and (2) acquisition of a parcel where the focal plant species occur. These two strategies, however, are somewhat incongruous, and thus the overall mitigation requirements remain unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the City will require the Applicant to both acquire a parcel containing Congdon’s tarplant and California dock and plant Congdon’s tarplant and California dock seeds on the parcel. It is also unclear why the Applicant would need to plant Congdon’s tarplant and California dock seeds on the parcel if those species already occur—especially given the potential for genetic contamination and the IS/MND’s requirement for the mitigation parcel to contain populations that are equivalent to those affected at the Project site (in terms of population size and vigor).77 These mitigation measures must be revised to ensure that they are both effective and enforceable. Wetlands The IS/MND requires the Applicant to prepare a Wetland Mitigation Plan and obtain “all required resource agency permits” before impacting the wetlands that occur at the Project site. The IS/MND concludes these two actions would reduce Project impacts to wetlands to a less- than-significant level. There are two crucial reasons why the City does not have the basis for this conclusion. 75 Rare Plant Survey Report, p. 6. 76 BRA, pp. 32 and 34. See also IS/MND, p. 28. 77 IS/MND, p. 29. 22 First, the IS/MND impermissibly defers analysis and critical aspects of the mitigation strategy to subsequent analysis conducted by the regulatory agencies (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [“Corps”] and Regional Water Quality Control Board [“RWQCB”]). Under CEQA, the City is obligated to identify the specific mitigation needed to mitigate Project impacts to less-than- significant levels. This includes the specific mitigation strategy (e.g., creation, restoration, enhancement), mitigation ratio, monitoring program, and performance standards and that will be implemented to ensure the Project would have less-than-significant impacts on the environment (i.e., independent of analysis conducted by the Corps and RWQCB designed to ensure compliance with state and federal wetland regulations). Contrary to what the IS/MND suggests, the City cannot rely on deferred mitigation and the permitting requirements of other agencies to conclude impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. For example, in its comment letter to the lead agency for another project, the RWQCB recently stated: It is inappropriate to rely upon agency regulations for determining that impacts will be at insignificant levels…Water Board staff strongly discourages the County [of Kern] from attempting to defer to the later preparation of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permits to address the above issues. Such an approach would constitute deferment of mitigation. In the event that this occurs, the Water Board may require substantial modifications to the Project during the course of permitting review to ensure all water quality impacts [are] adequately mitigated. Water Board staff encourages the Project proponents to initiate detailed plans early in the process to allow for full and adequate review of the Project to address the above issues. This planning should be concurrent with the CEQA process as opposed to a sequential permitting approach.78 Second, compliance with regulatory permits provides no assurances that Project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be less-than-significant. To the contrary, numerous studies have demonstrated that many compensatory mitigation projects permitted under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act are not achieving the goal of “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions.79 For example, Ambrose and Lee (2004) concluded: “the Section 401 program has failed to achieve the goal of no net loss of habitat functions, values and services.”80 The National Academy of Sciences (2001) conducted a comprehensive review of compensatory 78 Kern County. 2011 Oct. Final Environmental Impact Report: RE Distributed Solar Projects, Chapter 7-4 (part 1), comment letter 8. 79 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. Available at: <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10134/compensating-for-wetland-losses-under-the-clean-water-act>. See also Society of Wetland Scientists (and references therein). 2000. Position Paper on Performance Standards for Wetland Restoration and Creation. 4 pp. See also Environmental Law Institute. 2004. Measuring Mitigation: A Review of the Science for Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards. Report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency. 271 pp. Available at: <http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_609.pdf>. See also Kihslinger RL. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects. 2008. National Wetlands Newsletter 30(2):14-16. Available at: <http://www.tetonwyo.org/DocumentCenter/View/3309>. 80 Ambrose RF, SF Lee. 2004. Guidance Document for Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board. p. 8. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237587967_Guidance_Document_for_Compensatory_Mitigation_Projec ts_Permitted_Under_Clean_Water_Act_Section_401_by_the_Los_Angeles_Regional_Quality_Control_Board> 23 wetland mitigation projects in the U.S. and found that the national “no net loss” goal is not being met because: (a) there is little monitoring of permit compliance, and (b) the permit conditions commonly used to establish mitigation success do not assure the establishment of wetland functions.81 Ambrose et al. (2007) derived similar results after examining 143 projects permitted by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Specifically, they concluded: (a) only 46% of the projects fully complied with all permit conditions, and (b) very few wetland mitigation projects were successful, especially from the ecological perspective.82 Several other studies have shown that the regulatory agencies are not ensuring the success of wetland mitigation projects.83 Most notably, a 2005 report issued by the United States Government Accountability Office concluded that: “the Corps of Engineers does not have an effective oversight approach to ensure that compensatory mitigation is occurring.”84 In summary, the IS/MND improperly defers analysis and concludes future permits issued by other agencies would ensure Project impacts to wetlands would be less-than-significant. However, substantial evidence shows that those permits have been ineffective in mitigating impacts to wetlands. Thus, the sole basis for the City’s conclusion of insignificance is not supported by evidence. Mitigation Strategy The IS/MND indicates: “[c]ompensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or waters.” It is important to preserve existing wetlands. However, preservation of existing wetlands is not an acceptable mitigation strategy because there is no increase in wetland area, and thus, it does not achieve the nation’s standard for “no net loss” of wetland area.85 As a result, the City must identify the specific strategies that will be used to mitigate the Project’s significant impacts on wetlands, and it must provide evidence demonstrating those strategies would achieve no net loss of wetland area and functions. 81 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. 82 Ambrose RF, JL Callaway, SF Lee. 2007. An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Resources Control Board, 1991-2002. xxiv + 396 pp. Available at: <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/mitigation_finalreport_full081307.pdf>. 83 Kihslinger RL. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects. 2008. National Wetlands Newsletter 30(2):14-16. See also Environmental Law Institute. 2004. Measuring Mitigation: A Review of the Science for Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards. Report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency. 271 pp. 84 United States Government Accountability Office. 2005. Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring. Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. GAO-05-898 Wetlands Protection. Available at: <http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/247675.pdf>. 85 In 1989 the United States government established the goal of achieving a “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions due to historic and ongoing wetland losses throughout the U.S. 24 This concludes my comments on the IS/MND. Please contact me if you would like to discuss any issues raised by these comments. Sincerely, Scott Cashen, M.S. Senior Biologist Via Email and Hand Delivery February 13, 2018 City of Dublin Planning Commission 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Martha Battaglia Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov Re: Comments on Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, PLPA-2017-00025 Honorable Members of the City of Dublin Planning Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 304, and its members living in and near the City of Dublin (collectively “LIUNA”) regarding the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (“SMND”) prepared for the Zeiss Innovation Center (the “Project”) (PLPA-2017-00025). After reviewing the SMND together with our team of expert consultants, it is evident that the Project meets all of the criteria for requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) rather than a Supplemental MND. The SMND fails as an informational document, and fails to fully analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant environmental impacts. LIUNA requests that the City address the significant environmental impacts described below in an EIR prior to considering approval of the Project. LIUNA submits the expert comments of wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments and resume are attached hereto as Exhibit A. LIUNA submits herewith comments from air quality expert James Clark, Ph.D. Dr. Clark’s comments and resume are attached hereto as Exhibit B. LIUNA also submits comments from expert transportation analyst Daniel Smith, Jr., P.E., a registered civil and traffic engineer. Mr. Smith’s Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 2 expert comments and resume are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Finally, LIUNA also submits the expert comments of toxics expert Heidi Bauer, which are attached hereto as Exhibit D. These experts and our own independent review demonstrate that the SMND is inadequate and under CEQA, and that that an EIR should be prepared prior to Project approval to analyze all impacts and require implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Carl Zeiss, Inc. proposes to develop the Zeiss Innovation Center in east Dublin, on the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road on 11.36 net acres of land. SMND, p. 1. The Project site is currently vacant. Id. Seasonal wetlands make up 1.03 acres of the project site. Id. The Project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of a three-story, 208,650 gross square feet research and development (“R&D”) building and 663 surface parking spaces. SMND, p. 4. Phase 2 could include an additional five-story, 224,440 gross square foot R&D building, and a five-story parking garage with 1,229 spaces. Id. At build out, the Project would include two low-to-mid-rise research and development (“R&D”) buildings, one three stories and one five stories, totaling 433,090 gross square feet, and 1,396 parking spaces. SMND, p. 4. The buildings will be used for research, development and testing, light assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting office spaces. Id. The Project will accommodate approximately 1,500 employees upon completion. Id. II. PRIOR CEQA DOCUMENTS A. 1993 East Dublin EIR Twenty-five years ago, in May of 1993, the Dublin City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (“Eastern Dublin EIR”). SMND, p. 2. The EIR as certified included an Addendum to the East Dublin EIR that assessed a reduced development project alternative. Id. The City Council approved the General Permit Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative. Id. According to the SMND, the East Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Id. As part of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Dublin City Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of community facilities, regional air quality, noise, and visual. The East Dublin contains mitigation measures that are to be applied to any development within the project area, which includes the Project. B. Cisco Systems MND Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 3 Fifteen years ago, in 2003, the Dublin City Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed Cisco Systems project. Id. Prior to entitlement, Cisco withdrew their application. Id. However, the property owner moved forward with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments for the project site. Id. As a result, in 2003, the City Council amended the General Plan and the East Dublin Specific Plan from High Density Residential to Campus Office and adopted the Cisco IS/MND (“Cisco MND”). Id. The Cisco MND assumed 430,090 square feet of office and Research and Development space to accommodate 3,000 employees. Id. III. LEGAL STANDARD After an EIR, Negative Declaration, or MND is prepared for a project, a supplemental or subsequent EIR is only required when one of the following occurs: • Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions to the prior CEQA document; • Substantial changes occur in circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous CEQA document; or • New information of substantial importance to the project that was not known and could not have been known when the prior CEQA document was approved becomes available. Pub. Res. Code § 21166; 14 CCR § 15162. If, because of new information or changed circumstances a new or more substantial impact was not previously studied, then a further EIR is required if the change “may produce a significant environmental effect.” Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Comm. Coll., 1 Cal.5th 937 at 958 (2016). This is determined under the “fair argument” standard, meaning that an EIR is required if there is any substantial evidence that changes in circumstances or new information not previously available demonstrates that the project may have a significant environmental impact. Id. Here, new information and changes in circumstances may produce significant environmental impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR. IV. ANALYSIS A. The SMND Fails to Fully Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s New Significant Biological Impacts. Neither the East Dublin EIR, nor the Cisco MND identified any biological resources on site. SMND, p. 4. The SMND acknowledges that: Recent surveys (2017) of the site have identified wetlands and certain protected plant species as located on the site. The proposed project may cause significant impacts on Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 4 these resources. Therefore, a Supplemental MND has been prepared to analyze these impacts and include mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant. Id. Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have a significant impact on even more species than those identified in the SMND, and that the mitigation measures proposed in the SMND are not sufficient to fully mitigate the Project’s impacts on biological resources. In addition, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife movement, and may have significant cumulative impacts. An EIR is required because Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have significant and unmitigated impacts on biological resources. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments and resume are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1. The Project May Have Significant Impacts on Special Status Species. Dr. Smallwood concludes that the biological analysis conducted as part of the SMND is woefully incomplete and inadequate. According to Dr. Smallwood, the SMND mischaracterizes the species’ habitat requirements for numerous species in order to come to determinations of unlikely occurrence or no potential for occurrence of any species other than western burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. Smallwood, p. 5. Burrowing Owl. According to the SMND, “the project area is not currently inhabited by Western burrowing owls.” SMND, p. 26. As Dr. Smallwood points out, however, “A single site visit can determine presence of burrowing owls, but it cannot be used to determine absence.” Smallwood, p. 5. In order to assess the Project’s potential impacts to burrowing owls, detection surveys should have been conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Burrowing Owl Guidance Document (2012). Id. All but five of CDFW’s 39 standards for detection were not followed. Id. Looking on eBird.org, Dr. Smallwood noted that a burrowing owl was reported as being spotted on the Project site. Smallwood, p. 10, Table 3. Ferruginous hawk. According to the SMND, ferruginous hawk occurrence is “unlikely” because “[t]he Project Area is within a developed area, and lacks the open habitat required by this species for foraging and nesting. The lack of foraging habitat or nesting structures as well as a lack of connectivity with other open grasslands makes the Project Area unlikely to support this species.” Dr. Smallwood disagrees. Smallwood, p. 10. According to Dr. Smallwood, Ferruginous hawks will forage where they can. Id. “As more of their habitat has been converted to human uses, ferruginous hawks have had to make use of smaller and more isolated patches of habitat.” Id. at 10-11. He concludes that there is no reason to rule out use of the Project site by ferruginous hawks. Id. at 11. Northern harrier. The SMND concludes that Northern harrier occurrence is “unlikely” Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 5 because “[m]arsh and grassland habitat suitable for this species is not present within the Project Area.” As Dr. Smallwood points out, the site is composed entirely of grassland suitable for the species. Id. at 11. Dr. Smallwood “would characterize the site as classic northern harrier habitat.” Id. White-tailed kite. The SMND concludes that white-tailed kites occurrence is “unlikely” because the “Project Area is located in a predominantly developed area, and typical open grassland habitat used for foraging is not present.” According to Dr. Smallwood, “[t]his assessment is absurd. White-tailed kites are well known for foraging on sites just like this one.” Id. California horned lark. The SMND concludes that California horned lark occurrence is “unlikely. According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project site is covered by grassland cover typical or where he has documented horned larks many times. Id. Tricolored blackbird. The SMND concludes that tricolored blackbird occurrence has “no potential” because the “Project Area does not have any suitable habitat such as: marsh or thickets of willow, to support nesting or foraging of this species.” According to Dr. Smallwood, tricolored blackbirds forage on grasslands, such as the Project site. Id. at 12. Bald Eagle. The SMND concludes that Bald eagle occurrence has “no potential” because “There are no rivers, streams, lakes or other waterbodies to provide foraging habitat for this species within the Project Area.” Dr. Smallwood has “many times watched bald eagles foraging over grasslands far from any water body in the Altamont Pass over the last several decades,” and “visits [to the Project site] by juvenile bald eagles would not surprise” Dr. Smallwood. Id. Bell’s Sparrow. The SMND concludes that Bell’s Sparrow occurrence has “no potential” because “[t]he Project Area consists of mainly nonnative grasses. No breeding or foraging habitat exists within the Project Area to support this species.” Dr. Smallwood disagrees that Bell’s Sparrow, or any other species of wildlife in California is incapable of foraging in anything other than native grasslands. Smallwood, p. 13. Peregrine falcon. The SMND concludes that the Peregrine falcon occurrence has “no potential” because the “Project Area and immediate vicinity do not consist of any wetland, lake, river or other water body necessary to support this species.” This statement is clearly erroneous as the Project site includes over 1 acre of wetlands. According to Dr. Smallwood, this is an overly narrow habitat description. Id. “Peregrine falcons also nest on buildings and they forage over grasslands. They have been reported multiple times in the local area on eBird.” Id. Yellow-billed magpie. According to the SMND, yellow-billed magpie occurrence has “no potential” because the “Project Area is located in a predominantly developed area, and typical open grassland habitat used for foraging is not present. The lack of trees this species uses for cover is also absent.” According to Dr. Smallwood, “there is absolutely no reason to reject Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 6 the notion that the species would make use of the proposed project site. eBird also includes reports of yellow-billed magpie near the project site. WRA’s conclusion is wrong and misleading.” Id. at 13. Red-tailed hawk. Dr. Smallwood was able to visit the Project site, during which he personally observed the presence of a number of species. In particular, Dr. Smallwood observed a red-tailed hawk, which is protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code § 3503.5. Smallwood, p. 2. Impacts to this species are not analyzed in any prior CEQA document. Dr. Smallwood’s expert observations constitute substantial evidence that the Project may have an adverse impact so Red-Tailed Hawks. Dr. Smallwood’s expert opinion constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact on each of the species discussed above. An EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate these potentially significant impacts. 2. The Project May Have Significant Impacts on Animals as a Result of Window Collisions. Dr. Smallwood also indicates that the Project will have potential impacts on birds colliding with the Project’s clear glass windows. Smallwood, p. 14. “Wildlife will be killed and injured by the windows of the Zeiss Innovation Center.” Id. at 27. “Wetlands and trees are depicted just far enough from the glass façades to enable birds alighting from them to gain sufficient speed upon arrival at the windows that they will not survive the ensuing collisions. The building as planned would contribute to an ongoing national catastrophe in bird collision deaths caused by poorly planned incorporation of windows into building designs.” Id. at 14. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source of anthropogenic-caused bird mortality, yet the SMND made no attempt to analyze this potentially significant impact. An EIR is required to fully analyze and mitigate this impact. In order to mitigate these potential impacts to birds, Dr. Smallwood recommends the following mitigation measures: • Marking windows • Managing outdoor landscape vegetation • Managing indoor landscape vegetation • Managing nocturnal lighting • Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel facades • Designing to minimize views of interior plants • Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs Smallwood, p. 21. Dr. Smallwood also suggests adherence to available guidelines on building design intended to minimize collisions hazards to birds, such as those by the American Bird Conservancy (“ABC”). Smallwood, p. 22. ABC recommends: (1) minimizing use of glass; (2) Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 7 placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) turning off lights during migration seasons. Id. As additional mitigation, Dr. Smallwood recommends requiring funding to wildlife rehabilitation facilities: Wildlife will be killed and injured by the windows of the Zeiss Innovation Center. The impacts to injured wildlife can be rectified by helping to pay the costs of wildlife rehabilitation facilities, which operate on volunteer support and inadequate budgets. Smallwood, p. 27. Dr. Smallwood proposes a number of options the City should consider in determining how to appropriately compensate for the Project’s potential biological impacts. Id. at p. 28. These and other feasible mitigation measures must be considered in an EIR. 3. The Project May Have Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources. CEQA documents, such as the SMND, must discuss cumulative impacts, and mitigate significant cumulative impacts. 14 CCR § 15130(a). This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083, which requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if “the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. . . . ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” A legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis views a particular project over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. While acknowledging new Project-related biological impacts, the SMND fails to analyze the Project’s potentially significant cumulative biological impacts. Instead, the SMND concludes, without evidence, that: The implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. SMND, p. 86. The problem with this analysis, as it applies to biological resources, is that the SMND itself acknowledges that the Project’s biological impacts are new, so they could not have possibly been analyzed cumulatively in the East Dublin EIR or the Cisco MND. Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 8 The question that CEQA requires the City to address - and that the SMND fails to address – is: will the Project’s impacts be significant when combined with other past, current, and probable future projects. By failing to provide this basic information, the SMND’s cumulative biological impact analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Smallwood also points out that the SMND’s cumulative impact analysis is flawed. According to the SMND, an impact is cumulatively considerable only when it has not been fully mitigated. Dr. Smallwood states: The Initial Study presents a false standard for determining whether a project’s impacts will be cumulatively considerable. It implies that a given project impact is cumulatively considerable only when the project impact has not been fully mitigated. The Initial Study further implies that the impact would be cumulatively considerable only if the same impact caused by one or more other projects failed to fully mitigate the impact. In essence, the Initial Study implies that cumulative impacts are really residual impacts left over by inadequate project mitigation. Smallwood, p. 22. Dr. Smallwood describes the importance of the Project site to wildlife, given the lack of habitat surrounding the Project site: A strip mall occurs to the south, large buildings to the east and north, and to the west the field has been graded flat in preparation for some new development. Many of the animals on the proposed project site will have no refuge to which they can escape once ground is broken for the Center. Black-tailed jackrabbits and desert cottontails will be unable to run for cover to the north, south, east or west; they likely end up as road fatalities. Birds on the site will find increasingly less grassland habitat to move into once they have to leave the proposed project site. Smallwood, p. 3. Moreover, circumstances for biological species has changed dramatically since the East Dublin EIR was prepared in 1994. Id. at 23. Many of the special-status species observed by Dr. Smallwood on his site visit, or reported by members of the public on eBird.org lacked special status in 1994 “because cumulative impacts increased since then, changing the status of these species.” Id. Dr. Smallwood cites the yellow-billed magpie as an example: The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR could not have anticipated the widespread damage that West Nile Virus caused to yellow-billed magpie, driving the species’ numbers to the brink of extinction. In 1995 yellow-billed magpies were ubiquitous within their geographic range, including in Dublin, but now each and every project that removes more yellow-billed magpie habitat also generates, in combination with West Nile Virus, a cumulative impact on the species. Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 9 Id. Because of these changed circumstance, an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant cumulative biological impacts. B. The SMND Includes Improperly Deferred Mitigation Measures. CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309. An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses “‘meaningful information’ reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance.” Sundstrom at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only “for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible”). A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available). This approach helps “insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.” Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935. Moreover, “mitigation measure[s] [that do] no more than require a report be prepared and followed” do not provide adequate information for informed decisionmaking under CEQA. Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794; Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). By deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the City has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the court in Communities for a Better Env’t v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92: [R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA’s goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (“MM BIO-4”) requires, in part, that the Project applicant “obtain agency approval of a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net-loss of wetland and waters habitat.” SMND, p. 30. The wetland mitigation plan is required to include: measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures. Compensation measures Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 10 shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetland or waters. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount of impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s). Id. It must also include: a) Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values; b) Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies; c) Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored; d) An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and e) A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). Id. MM BIO-4 constitutes just the type of deferred mitigation CEQA prohibits. Here, the SMND defers the preparation of a wetland mitigation plan until after completion of CEQA review, without imposing any substantive standards, without providing for any public review, and subject only to “applicable resource agency(s)” approval. In addition, there is no evidence that the MM BIO-4 is feasible because there is no evidence that there are sufficient wetlands in the watershed to preserve or create wetlands within the impacted watershed. This is particularly true given that the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved will not be determined until after the Project is approved. Moreover, interested parties are precluded from commenting on the adequacy of the wetland mitigation plan, even though CEQA requires that they be permitted to do so. Deferral of mitigation is also impermissible if it removes the CEQA decision-making body from its decision-making role. The City may not delegate the formulation and approval of mitigation measures to address environmental impacts because an agency’s legislative body must ultimately review and vouch for all environmental analysis mandated by CEQA. Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308. Thus, the SMND may not rely on programs to be developed and implemented later without approval by the City. Yet that is precisely what MM BIO-4 does. Here, the lead agency has improperly delegated its legal responsibility of determining what constitutes adequate mitigation to unnamed “resources agency(s).” MM BIO-4 calls for a wetland mitigation plan that is prepared by the Project Application, and approved by “applicable resource agency(s).” The “resource agency(s)” will determine the final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and water created or preserved compared to the amount impacted). Id. It is Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 11 also up to the resource agency as to whether the wetland mitigation plan is sufficient to mitigate the Project’s impacts. The SMND may not rely on the wetland mitigation plan to be developed, approved, and implemented later without any approval by the City, at some future time after the Project has been approved. Without valid mitigation, the Project’s significant impact on wetlands remains significant. C. New Information and Changes in Circumstances Require Preparation of an EIR to Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s GHG Impacts. Neither the East Dublin EIR nor the Cisco MND analyze greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts. SMND, p. 41. The SMND similarly contains no analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions or impacts. The SMND claims that “Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is not required to be analyzed under CEQA standards for supplemental or subsequent EIRs unless it constitutes ‘new information of substantial important, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete.’” Id. The SMND then claims that, since the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the East Dublin EIR and Cisco MND, no supplemental analysis of GHGs is required, even though the impact was never analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. Id. The SMND is wrong. The need to analyze GHGs at all is a changed circumstance. At the time the East Dublin EIR and the Cisco MND were prepared, GHGs were not part of the CEQA analysis. It was not until the Legislature’s 2006 adoption of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & Safety Code § 38500, et seq), three years after the Cisco MND was adopted, that the “Legislature [ ] expressly acknowledged that greenhouse gases have a significant environmental effect.” It was not until January 2008, that a White Paper was issued by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association entitled “CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Jan. 2008)” discussing “different approaches for making a determination whether a project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be significant or less than significant.” Particularly important, it was not until 2010 that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) adopted CEQA thresholds of significance for GHG impacts. These air quality thresholds are treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (County applies BAAQMD’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”). See also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111 (“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant BAAQMD has determined that a project may have significant greenhouse gas (GHG) Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 12 emissions if it will generate more than 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (1,100 MT of CO2e/yr). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2010), p. 3-2 (attached hereto as Exhibit E). BAAQMD has published a table of project types and sizes that may generate more than 1,100 MT of GHG per year. Id. According to the BAAQMD screening table, a general office building with 53,000 square feet of space is large enough that it may have a significant GHG impact. Id. The Project is more than eight times the screening level. Given this new information, and the previous failure to analyze the Project’s GHG impacts,1 an EIR must be prepared to fully analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant GHG impacts. D. Changed Circumstances Have Occurred and New Information is Available Which Requires Preparation of an EIR as a Result of a New or More Serious Significant Air Quality Impacts. Air Quality Expert Dr. James Clark concludes that the Project will have a significant construction-related NOx impact during the first phase of the Project. The SMND claims that the “air quality impacts of the proposed project are within the scope of the project impacts covered by the Cisco MND and the Eastern Dublin EIR.” SMND, p. 20. This conclusion, however, is not supported by any evidence. No analysis was conducted of the Project’s construction or operational emissions. As a result, there is no evidence that the Project’s emissions would be equal to or less than those of the Cisco project. In contrast, Dr. Clark’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant construction-related NOx impact. Clark, p. 5-6. Dr. Clark’s comments are attached hereto as Exhibit B. An EIR is required to analyze this impact and propose feasible mitigation measures. In addition, since the release of the Cisco MND, new sensitive receptors have been identified within the zone of influence for the Project. Clark, p. 6. Sensitive receptors include hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, among others, and are places where occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effect of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. Id. Dr. Clark identified two sensitive receptors that were not identified in the SMND. First, the La Petite Academy is a daycare facility located at 3 Sybase Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of the Project site. Id. Second is the James Dougherty Elementary School located at 5301 Hibernia Dr., approximately 1,600 feet north east of the Project site. Id. In addition, the SMND discloses that “[p]roperties west of the project site are undergoing development as residential uses (Boulevard).” SMND, p. 2. None of these sensitive receptors is mentioned in the SMND or analyzed, but each constitutes a changed circumstance that may result in a significant impact as a result of the 1 The City’s failure to even conduct an analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions, let alone mitigate those impacts, is particularly egregious, given the efforts made by the City in recent years to combat greenhouse gases, including with the adoption of a Climate Action Plan and the adoption of the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement. See, http://dublinca.gov/1657/Climate-Action-Information (accessed Feb. 12, 2018) Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 13 Project exposing these sensitive receptors to air pollution. Because these changed circumstances may result in a significant impact, an EIR is required. E. Changed Circumstances Have Occurred that Result in a New Significant Cumulative Traffic Impact, Requiring Preparation of and EIR. The SMND relies on traffic information from 15 and 25 years ago. The Traffic Consistency Analysis that was prepared for the SMND provides an updated analysis of traffic expected to be generated by the Project, but it does not provide an updated analysis of the traffic that currently exists. For that, the SMND relies on the traffic conditions and projections from 15 and 25 years ago. According to traffic engineer Dan Smith, the Project may have a more significant cumulative traffic impact due to changed circumstances and new information. Dan Smith’s expert comments are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Traffic on nearby freeways is much heavier now than it was 25 years ago when the East Dublin EIR was prepared. Smith, p. 3. For example, the East Dublin EIR indicates that existing daily traffic volume on the I-580 between Hacienda and Tassajara interchanges was 135,000 vehicles, and projected that it would reach 184,000 vehicles in 2010, and 189,000 vehicles at full buildout. Id. (citing East Dublin EIR, Figure 3.3-E). Yet Caltrans data for this same location from 2016 indicates a traffic volume of 213,000 vehicles.2 Id. The vehicle count at this location when the Cisco MND was prepared was 177,000. The current traffic volume is 12.7 percent greater than the projected build-out volume in the East Dublin EIR. Id. at 4. Similarly, the East Dublin EIR indicates that between the Hacienda and Dougherty/Hopyard interchanges, I-580 had an existing daily traffic volume of 135,000, would have a 2010 volume of 191,000, and a build-out volume of 194,000 vehicles. Id. Yet Caltrans data from 2016 indicates that the traffic volume at this location was actually 233,000 vehicles per day. Id. This is 20.1 percent higher than the traffic projected in the East Dublin EIR. The vehicle count at this location when the Cisco MND was prepared was 183,000. Id. Given the significantly higher traffic volumes than predicted in the East Dublin EIR and the Cisco MND, and the underestimated traffic generated from the Project, the Project may have a significant traffic impact that has not been previously analyzed. An EIR must be prepared to analyze this potentially significant impact. Smith, p. 7. F. Changed Circumstances Have Occurred and New Information is Available Which Requires Preparation of an EIR as a Result of a New or More Significant Hazards Impact. The Cisco MND has no value to the current analysis of the Project site’s toxic contamination. Toxics expert Heidi Bauer concludes that the Project may have a significant 2 Data available at www.ca.gov/trafficops/census/. Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 14 impact from soil and groundwater contamination. Mrs. Bauer’s expert comments are attached hereto as Exhibit D. The Project site previously functioned as a US Naval facility (Camp Shoemaker) from the early 1940’s up until about 1949. Of interest to the subject site is two former fuel stations located on the property; one in the northwest portion of the property and one in the southwest of the property. Parcel 15A also contained an inflammable storage building, public works office and shop, transportation shop and barracks, and another unidentified building (Lowney 2000). A former laundry and boiler room was located on the adjacent parcel to the east (Parcel 15B). The Zeiss Innovation Center is being proposed on the former Parcel 15A site. Bauer, p. 1. Between 1998 and 2000, in response to directives from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and in preparation for the Cisco MND, several soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations were conducted. The main areas of concern for the project (Parcel 15A) is the area of the former fuel stations piping and associated leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), the upgradient/sidegradient (Parcel 15B) which shows elevated PCE levels likely from the former laundry, the possible contaminated fill from incinerator ash used throughout the property and the presence of an unknown tar-like substance on Parcel 15. Bauer, p. 2. The SMND contains no new or updated analysis of the contamination below the Project site, instead relying completely on data from prior to 2001. As detailed in the expert comments of toxics expert Heidi Bauer: The data relied on in the Zeiss IS/MND (Zeiss IS/ MND, 2017) in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section is no longer appropriate for use. The latest data collected for this site is 18-20 years old. The site subsurface in the area of the water table is dynamic and contaminant concentrations in the vadose and saturated zones change with the groundwater table fluctuation and also with the direction of groundwater flow. Bauer, p. 5. Because the groundwater flow direction is towards the southwest, Contaminant concentrations that were detected above the ESL from the north portion of the site likely migrated southwest and therefore could be found in other portions of the site not previously investigated.” Bauer, p. 5. “The environmental history of this site, including the unknown impacts from the uninvestigated site soils, combined with the existing elevated concentrations of contaminants above the ESLs in the groundwater can potentially create a significant environmental health threat to worker safety, the public and future employees at the project site.” Bauer, p. 6. Because of the changed circumstances, an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate this potentially significant impact. G. The Project Requires a Water Supply Assessment. Zeiss Innovation Center SMND Dublin Planning Commission February 13, 2018 Page 15 Under SB 610, projections about water availability must be developed before certain large development projects that will be served by a public water system can be approved. Water Code §§ 10910-10915. The public water system identified as the water provided for a proposed project must prepare a water supply assessment that is then included in an EIR or negative declaration. Madera Oversight Coalition v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 96. SB 610 applies when a project subject to CEQA meets any of the criteria in Water Code section 10912. These criteria include a business establishment employing more than 1,000 people and a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. Here, the Project will accommodate 1,500 employees, in buildings totaling 433,090 square feet. SMND, p. 3, 4. The Project will also be served by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, which is a public water system. SMND, p. 80. As a result, a Water Supply Assessment must be prepared and included in the SMND. Water Code §§ 10910-10915; Madera Oversight Coalition v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 96. This is particularly important in light of the frequent drought conditions that have plagued the area in recent years. A Water Supply Assessment was not included in the SMND. As a result, LIUNA is concerned that a WSA has not been prepared for the project, as required by SB 610. If there is no WSA for the Project, one must be prepared and circulated with the SMND. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, LIUNA believes the SMND is deficient and inadequate. LIUNA urges the City to make the above changes, and recirculate the revised SMND or an EIR to the public for review. Thank you for your attention to these comments. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Davis Lozeau | Drury LLP EXHIBIT A 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 9 February 2018 RE: Zeiss Innovation Center Dear Ms. Battaglia, I write to comment on the Initial Study and supplemental mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center (Kimley-Horn 2017), which I understand is to be a new development on 11.36 acres in the City of Dublin. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I earned a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from the University of California at Davis in 1990, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, habitat restoration, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I have authored numerous papers on special-status species issues, including “Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation,” published in Environmental Management (Smallwood et al. 1999), and “Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues” published in the Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society (Smallwood et al. 2001). I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was also Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-three years. Over these years, I studied the impacts of human activities and human infrastructure on wildlife, including on golden eagle, Swainson's hawk, burrowing owl, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, mountain lion and other species. I have also performed wildlife surveys at many proposed project sites. I also collaborate with colleagues worldwide on the underlying science and policy issues related to anthropogenic impacts on wildlife. I have performed research on wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. My CV is attached. 2 SITE VISIT I visited the proposed project site on 8 February 2018 (Figures 1-3). For about one hour I walked along the southern and western perimeters of the property, while looking over conditions at the site and for signs of wildlife. By no means was I there long enough to provide any evidence of species absences, which was, after all, the responsibility of the City of Dublin. But I did verify the presence of a few of species I thought would be there (Table 1). Of these species, red-tailed hawk is protected by California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 and California gulls are included on Shuford and Gardali’s (2008) Taxa to Watch List. The presence of California ground squirrels indicates potential for nesting burrowing owls in the spring. Figure 1. Canada geese fly over the proposed project site, 8 February 2018. Figure 2. Juvenile white-crowned sparrow foraging on the proposed project site, 8 February 2018. 3 Table 1. Species of wildlife I observed from 10:50 to 11:05 hours on 8 February 2018 at the site of the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center, where Site refers to the proposed project site, west side refers to the graded property west of Arnold and immediately west of the site, east side refers to developer property immediately east of the site, and east edge refers to trees and buffer between project site and developed area east of site. Species Scientific name Area Abundance Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus West side 3 Desert cottontail Syvalagus auduboni Site 4 California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi Site 2 Canada goose Branta canadensis Site 12 California gull Larus californicus Site Many Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Site 1 Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis East side 1 American robin Turdus migratorius East edge 1 Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum East edge 40 Mourning dove Zenaita macroura Site 2 Rock pigeon Columba livea Site 3 American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Site Many California towhee Pipilo fuscus Site 2 White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Site Many Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoenicus Site A few Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Site 2 American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Site 2 House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Site Many Around the site remains little wildlife habitat, or none, really. A strip mall occurs to the south, large buildings to the east and north, and to the west the field has been graded flat in preparation for some new development. Many of the animals on the proposed project site will have no refuge to which they can escape once ground is broken for the Center. Black-tailed jackrabbits and desert cottontails will be unable to run for cover to the north, south, east or west; they likely end up as road fatalities. Birds on the site will find increasingly less grassland habitat to move into once they have to leave the proposed project site. 4 Figure 3. Cedar waxwing, one of 40 that landed in trees at southeast corner of proposed project site, 8 February 2018. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Kimley-Horn (2017) provided an improved Initial Study over the City of Dublin’s (2001) Initial Study involving the same property. Where no wetlands and no special-status species were determined to have existed on site in 2001 (because the City did not bother to have a biologist look at the site, as far as I could tell from City of Dublin 2001), Kimley-Horn (2017) identified 1.03 acres of wetland, two special-status species of plant, and two special-status species of wildlife. Nevertheless, Kimley-Horn (2017) comes up short in its biological impacts assessment. Contributing to an inadequate assessment were erroneous characterizations of species’ habitat, wildlife movement, and cumulative effects. Kimley-Horn (2017) relied on WRA (2017) for the biological resources assessment. WRA (2017) surveyed electronic data bases for special-status species occurrences and sent out a biologist to walk over the site on 12 April 2017, simultaneously surveying for burrowing owls and recording plant species. Having performed these types of all-in-one 5 surveys myself, while working for an environmental consulting firm, I am familiar with their limitations. For one thing it can be difficult searching for wildlife while looking down at plants. Another problem with the survey effort was its lack of reporting of … the survey effort. WRA (2017) reports only that a biologist walked over the property. Missing from WRA (2017) was the name and qualifications of who performed the survey, what time the survey began, and how long it lasted. WRA’s (2017) reporting does not achieve professional standards nor does it support the informed decision- making as one of the principal goals of CEQA. WRA (2017), and hence Kimley-Horn (2017:23), acknowledged that two special-status species of wildlife are likely to be adversely affected by the project: western burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. But after these acknowledgements, WRA (2017) resorted to mischaracterizing species’ habitat requirements before coming to determinations of unlikely occurrence or no potential for occurrence of any other species. Most of the mischaracterizations were made by pigeon-holing species into falsely narrow portions of the environment, and then pointing out that that narrow environment does not exist on the project site. To these determinations I will comment species by species, but first I will comment on another WRA assessment. According to WRA (2017: Figure 2), there will be a “bioretention cell” represented by a small, narrow, green triangular polygon on a map. The term bioretention cell sounds awfully generous, but it begs the question of what biology would be retained in isolation from whatever “bio” used to occupy the rest of the field. Without identifying the biological resources being retained, and without characterizing the minimum amount of space needed for retention of a meaningful unit of demography of that resource (see Smallwood 2001), the bioretention cell is nothing more than a cynical joke. Is the bioretention cell intended to preserve burrowing owls? Loggerhead shrikes? Snails? What is WRA (2017) talking about? Returning to species assessments, under Kimley-Horn’s (2017:26) Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, I need to begin by pointing out that burrowing owls are not mammals, as the subheading implies. Hopefully this error is a small mistake and not evidence of unfamiliarity with wildlife. However, lack of familiarity glared brightly in Kimly-Horn’s determination of burrowing owl likelihood of occurrence, to which I comment next. According to Kimley-Horn (2017:26), “As determined in the project site survey conducted on April 12, 2017 by WRA, Inc., the project area is not currently inhabited by Western burrowing owls.” Actually, to its credit WRA (2017) made no such determination, probably because WRA (2017) was aware that guidelines are available on how to perform detection surveys for burrowing owl. A single site visit can determine presence of burrowing owls, but it cannot be used to determine absence. Having performed multiple long-term studies of nesting and non-nesting burrowing owls across large study areas (e.g., Smallwood et al. 2013), I can vouch for the CDFW (2012) guidelines. Burrowing owl nesting behavior is dynamic in early April, as breeders sort out pair bonds and breeding sites. Sites selected in early April are often abandoned a few weeks later, and sites lacking breeding pairs in early April are often used for nesting 6 in May, June, or even later. In the Altamont Pass, a few miles east of the proposed project site, I have recorded chicks emerging from nest burrows as late as October. By no means is a 12 April site visit sufficient for making the determination noted above by Kimley-Horn (2017). WRA came nowhere close to meeting the standards expected from CDFW (2012) for assessing impacts to burrowing owl appear (Table 2). Because detection surveys were not performed, all but five of CDFW’s (2012) 39 standards have yet to be met in the Initial Study (Table 2). CDFW’s recommendations were prepared by a scientist who earned her PhD on research she performed on burrowing owls, and her work only added to the recommendations built on decades of guidelines developed and widely circulated by professional biologists working on burrowing owls. There are scientifically sound reasons for the detection survey standards recommended in CDFW (2012). The City of Dublin should follow the guidelines. In the following paragraphs I will comment on determinations related to the likelihood of occurrence of additional special-status species. But even if the project site supports the two special-status species of wildlife acknowledged by WRA (2017) – loggerhead shrike and burrowing owl – the potential impacts on these species warrant the preparation of an EIR. More work is needed on estimating the magnitudes of the impacts on these species. More work is also needed on estimating impacts on the species I comment on below. It would have helped had WRA consulted eBird (https://eBird.org). Although not a scientific data base, its contributors include many highly qualified people, some of whom I am familiar. For example, some of the reports of birds near the proposed project site were posted by Richard Cimino, Ed Whisler and Colleen Lennihan, three whose skills at birding I trust. Many of the postings also come with notes or photos or videos, allowing confirmation of the species identification. Table 3 includes a list of special-status species of birds resulting from my quick review of eBird postings in the project area. 7 Table 2. Assessment of Initial Study consistency with CDFW’s (2012) recommended burrowing owl survey protocol. Standards are numbered to match those in CDFW (2012). Standard in CDFW (2012) Assessment of surveys performed Was the standard met? Minimum qualifications of biologists performing surveys and impact assessments (1) Familiarity with the species and local ecology I saw no evidence of familiarity with burrowing owls or local ecology. The only citation of source material was to Shufard and Gardali (2008), which provides briefs on each of the many species they covered. No (2) Experience conducting habitat assessments and breeding and non-breeding season surveys No information provided. No (3) Familiarity with regulatory statutes, scientific research and conservation related to burrowing owls No information provided on knowledge of research or conservation of burrowing owls. No (4) Experience with analyzing impacts on burrowing owls No information provided. No Habitat assessment (1) Conduct at least 1 visit covering entire site and offsite buffer to 150 m One site visit was made and a squirrel burrow was photographed. Yes (2) Prior to site visit, compile relevant biological information on site and surrounding area Data bases were consulted. Yes (3) Check available sources for occurrence records Not all sources were checked. No (4) Identify vegetation cover potentially supporting burrowing owls on site and vicinity Vegetation cover was characterized, though not in much detail. Partial (5a) Describe project and timeline of activities No such description appeared. No (5b) Regional setting map showing project location Provided. Yes (5c) Detailed map with project footprint, topography, landscape and potential vegetation-altering activities Showed project footprint. Yes (5d) Biological setting including location, acreage, terrain, soils, geography, hydrology, land use and management history Only cursory information reported in IS. Partial (5e) Analysis of relevant historical information concerning burrowing owl use or occupancy None provided. No 8 Standard in CDFW (2012) Assessment of surveys performed Was the standard met? (5f) Vegetation cover and height typical of temporal and spatial scales relevant to the assessment Not provided. No (5g) Presence of burrowing owl individuals, pairs or sign No. No (5h) Presence of suitable burrows or burrow surrogates There was no mapping of potential burrows. No Breeding season surveys Perform 4 surveys separated by at least 3 weeks Only 1 survey performed, but not focused on burrowing owls. No 1 survey between 15 February and 15 April Yes, but not focused on burrowing owls. No 2-3 surveys between 15 April and 15 July No surveys performed. No 1 survey following June 15 No survey performed. No Walk transects spaced 7 m to 20 m apart No transect separation distance reported. No Scan entire viewable area using binoculars at start of each transect and at 100 m intervals Not done, or at least not reported. No Record all potential burrow locations determined by presence of owls or sign Not done. No Survey when temperature >20° C, winds <12 km/hr, and cloud cover <75% No weather conditions reported. No Survey between dawn and 10:00 hours or within 2 hours before sunset No start time or survey duration reported. No Identify and discuss any adverse conditions such as disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance Not done. No Survey several years at projects where activities will be ongoing, annual or start-and-stop to cover high nest site fidelity Does not apply --- Reporting should include: (1) Survey dates with start and end times and weather conditions Not reported. No (2) Qualifications of surveyor(s) Not reported. No (3) Discussion of how survey timing affected comprehensiveness and detection probability Not reported. No 9 Standard in CDFW (2012) Assessment of surveys performed Was the standard met? (4) Description of survey methods including point count dispersal and duration Not reported. No (5) Description and justification of the area surveyed Not reported. No (6) Numbers of nestlings or juveniles associated with each pair and whether adults were banded or marked No owls seen, though survey was not focused on burrowing owls. No (7) Descriptions of behaviors of burrowing owls observed No owls seen, though survey was not focused on burrowing owls. No (8) List of possible burrowing owl predators in the area, including any signs of predation of burrowing owls No surveys performed. No (9) Detailed map showing all burrowing owl locations and potential or occupied burrows No owls seen, though survey was not focused on burrowing owls. No (10) Signed field forms, photos, etc. Not reported. No (11) Recent color photos of project site Provided. Yes (12) Copies of CNDDB field forms Not reported. No 10 Table 3. Species reported on eBird (https://eBird.org) on or near the proposed project site. Species Scientific name Status1 On site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis CDFW 3503.5 Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia FCC, SSC2 Near the site Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus TWL California gull Larus californicus TWL Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CE Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis CDFW 3503.5, TWL Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni BCC, CT Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus CDFW 3503.5 Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus CDFW 3503.5, TWL Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi CDFW 3503.5, TWL Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3 White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, TWL American kestrel Falco sparverius CDFW 3503.5 Merlin Falco columbarius CDFW 3503.5, TWL Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus CDFW 3503.5, TWL Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus FSC, SSC2 Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC1 Lawrence’s goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei BCC 1 Listed as FE = federal endangered, FCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, BCC = federal Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CE = California endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFG Code 4700), CDFW 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008). According to WRA (2017:App. B), Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis occurrence is “Unlikely. The Project Area is within a developed area, and lacks the open habitat required by this species for foraging and nesting. The lack of foraging habitat or nesting structures as well as a lack of connectivity with other open grasslands makes the Project Area unlikely to support this species.” I disagree. Ferruginous hawks will forage where they can. As more of their habitat has been converted to human uses, ferruginous hawks have had to make use of smaller and more isolated patches of 11 habitat. On 25 January 2018 I watched and photographed three ferruginous hawks foraging for ground squirrels and pocket gophers on a similar-sized field surrounded by residential and commercial developments (Figure 1). In my experience, there is no reason to rule out use of the proposed project site by ferruginous hawks. Figure 1. A ferruginous hawk grabs into a pocket gopher mound while foraging on a field of similar size, vegetation cover, and residential/commercial surroundings as at the proposed project site. According to WRA (2017:App. B), Northern harrier Circus cyaneus occurrence is “Unlikely. Marsh and grassland habitat suitable for this species is not present within the Project Area.” This assessment is not true. The site is entirely composed of grassland suitable for the species. I would characterize the site as classic northern harrier habitat. According to WRA (2017:App. B), White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus occurrence is “Unlikely. The Project Area is located in a predominantly developed area, and typical open grassland habitat used for foraging is not present.” This assessment is absurd. White-tailed kites are well known for foraging on sites just like this one. White- tailed kites nest and forage near my house, in settings similar to this one. According to WRA (2017:App. B), California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia occurrence is “Unlikely. The Project Area lacks suitable grasses and shrubs to provide adequate foraging habitat. Lack of connectivity to other potentially suitable habitats also lessens likelihood of presence within the Project Area.” This conclusion is false and misleading. The site is covered by grassland cover typical of where I have documented horned larks many times. 12 According to WRA (2017:App. B), Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor occurrence has “No Potential. The Project Area does not have any suitable habitat such as: marsh or thickets of willow, to support nesting or foraging of this species.” Whoever wrote this must have no experience with tricolored blackbird, which forages on grasslands. Figure 2 includes one of the many photos I can produce of tricolored blackbirds foraging on grasslands. Figure 2. Tricolored blackbirds foraging on grasslands a few miles west of the proposed project site in May 2016. According to WRA (2017:App. B), Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus occurrence has “No Potential. There are no rivers, streams, lakes or other waterbodies to provide foraging habitat for this species within the Project Area.” I have many times watched bald eagles foraging over grasslands far from any water body in the Altamont Pass over the last several decades. I doubt that bald eagles would spend more than the rare moment at the proposed project site, but visits by juvenile bald eagles would not surprise me in the least. According to WRA (2017:App. B), Bell’s Sparrow Amphiza belli occurrence has “No Potential. The Project Area consists of mainly nonnative grasses. No breeding or foraging habitat exists within the Project Area to support this species.” WRA (2017) 13 asserts that Bell’s sparrow cannot forage in anything other than native grasslands. I don’t believe any species of wildlife is so constrained in California. Where is the evidence in support of WRA’s claim that only native grasslands can be used by Bell’s sparrow? According to WRA (2017:App. B), Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus occurrence has “No Potential. The Project Area and immediate vicinity do not consist of any wetland, lake, river or other water body necessary to support this species.” WRA presents an overly narrow habitat description and pigeon-holes peregrine falcons into it. Peregrine falcons also nest on buildings and they forage over grasslands. They have been reported multiple times in the local area on eBird. According to WRA (2017:App. B), Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli occurrence has “No Potential. The Project Area is located in a predominantly developed area, and typical open grassland habitat used for foraging is not present. The lack of trees this species uses for cover is also absent.” I have performed nearly 30 years of surveys for yellow-billed magpie along 129 miles of transect across the Sacramento Valley, some of which was reported in Smallwood and Nakamoto (2010). I have also lived with yellow- billed magpies in my community and my backyard, until West Nile Virus destroyed the local population. Based on all my experience with yellow-billed magpie, there is absolutely no reason to reject the notion that the species would make use of the proposed project site. eBird also includes reports of yellow-billed magpie near the project site. WRA’s conclusion is wrong and misleading. According to WRA (2017:App. B), Western pond turtle Actinemys (Emys) marmorata occurrence has “No Potential. The Project Area lacks suitable perennial water habitat to support the species.” Whereas I concur the potential is low for pond turtles to occur on the proposed project site, I do want to point out that pond turtles nest in grasslands, often quite far from aquatic habitat. WRA (2017) mischaracterizes pond turtle habitat. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT The Initial Study applies a false CEQA standard to conclude the project will have no significant impact on wildlife movement in the region. The false standard was initiated by WRA (2017:30), “Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas typically occurs via wildlife movement corridors.” This statement implies that the only wildlife movement that matters to a CEQA assessment is that which occurs along movement corridors. Kimley-Horn (2017:31) enhances the false standard by writing “There are no stream courses on or near the project site that could be used as a wildlife migration corridor.” The Initial Study gives the impression that the only wildlife movement that matters to a CEQA assessment is that which occurs along stream courses. But the CEQA standard is whether a project will “Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors…” The primary phrase of the standard goes to wildlife 14 movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor or a stream course. I have spent a lot of my research time in the study of wildlife movement, beginning in 1985 with my statewide track survey for mountain lions. Since then I have also collected thousands of flight paths of birds I observed flying over large areas during behavior surveys where I related periodic positions of the periods to mapped terrain features including stream courses, ridge crests, roads, and many others. I have examined millions of positions collected from GPS-telemetered golden eagles. And with the use of my thermal imaging camera over 900 hours of surveys near the proposed project site, I have mapped the routes taken by birds and mammalian carnivores traveling over large areas at night. What I have learned is that whereas certain terrain features often channel wildlife movement, most travel paths are located far from such features. This makes perfect sense, stopping to think about it. If wildlife only traveled along movement corridors, predators would readily predict travel paths and capture their prey, and prey would readily predict travel paths and evade capture by their predators. In fact, the scientific literature on corridors reveals movement corridors as more of a human-conceived landscape structure rarely supported by evidence (Smallwood 2015). The corridor concept applies more to constructing features to offset the effects of habitat fragmentation, so is more related to something that humans create for wildlife and less related to wildlife finding and using natural features of the landscape for travel (Smallwood 2015). WRA (2017) and Kimley-Horn (2017) also mischaracterize wildlife movement as movement made only by terrestrial species. Their definitions of corridors bear poorly on birds and bats. Any proposed project should be assessed for potential impacts on the movement of birds and bats and any other volant organism including arthropods and plants via pollen dispersal. The use of the site as stopover habitat during migration needs to be considered, and how loss of that stopover would interfere with migration. The construction of a building will introduce a barrier effect to birds and bats, which obviously will be unable to fly through the building. WINDOW COLLISIONS The Initial Study’s depiction of the Zeiss Innovation Center includes an attractive building, but to an ecologist familiar with bird collisions with windows the depiction is cause for concern. The cover depiction (also see Kimley-Horn 2017: Figure 8) shows a flock of birds flying over a wetland next to a glass-sided building. The building’s façade appears to be largely composed of clear glass windows showing off a lit interior. Wetlands and trees are depicted just far enough from the glass façades to enable birds alighting from them to gain sufficient speed upon arrival at the windows that they will not survive the ensuing collisions. The building as planned would contribute to an ongoing national catastrophe in bird collision deaths caused by poorly planned incorporation of windows into building designs. In the paragraphs that follow I will review estimates of the magnitude of the problem, hypothesized causal factors, and solutions. 15 Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or anthropogenic-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365- 988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates and their interpretation warrant examination because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, and fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers. Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact. Homes with birdfeeders are associated with higher rates of window collisions than are homes without birdfeeders (Kummer and Bayne 2015, Kummer et al. 2016a), so the developed area might pose even greater hazard to birds if it includes numerous birdfeeders. Another factor potentially biasing national or North American estimates low was revealed by Bracey et al.’s (2016) finding that trained fatality searchers found 2.6× the number of fatalities found by homeowners on the days when both trained searchers and homeowners searched around homes. The difference in carcass detection was 30.4-fold when involving carcasses volitionally placed by Bracey et al. (2016) in blind detection trials. This much larger difference in trial carcass detection rates likely resulted because their placements did not include the sounds that typically alert homeowners to actual window collisions, but this explanation also raises the question of how often homeowner participants with such studies miss detecting window-caused fatalities because they did not hear the collisions. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) were able to incorporate many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can 16 include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption- laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities. The existing conditions – the developed area – is undoubtedly killing many birds each year. Not only are windows killing many birds, but so too are house cats, feral cats, electric distribution lines, electric power poles, and autos. This said, the proposed project will add a level of impact that is entirely missing from the CEQA review. Constructing a three-story building will not only take aerial habitat from birds, but it will also interfere with the movement of birds in the region and it will result in large numbers of annual window collision fatalities. Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high- rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48 day span, Porter 17 and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5- story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center will result in many collision fatalities of birds. Window Collision Factors Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect (5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other reflective surface (6) Size of window (7) Type of glass (8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation (13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants (15) Relative abundance (16) Season of the year (17) Ecology, demography and behavior (18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions (1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure’s collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is 18 that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although the impacts of a glass-sided building would likely be much greater. (2) Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation. The Kimley-Horn (2017: Figure 8) depiction of the Zeiss Innovation Center shows expansive use of high-transparency glass. (3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions. The Kimley-Horn (2017: Figure 8) depiction of the Zeiss Innovation Center shows expansive use of reflective glass, especially in low lux conditions. The depiction even includes reflected images of trees. (4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. The Kimley-Horn (2017: Figure 8) depiction of the Zeiss Innovation Center shows many potential examples of black hole or passage effects, such as at the upper corners of the entrance doors. (5) Window or façade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), and Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of façade that was glazed. The Kimley-Horn (2017: Figure 8) depiction of the Zeiss Innovation Center shows use of large window panels connecting together contiguously around the building and from floor to ceiling of each floor. (6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows. The Kimley-Horn (2017: Figure 8) depiction of the Zeiss Innovation Center shows use of very large window panels. 19 (7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings. (8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. The Kimley-Horn (2017: Figure 8) depiction of the Zeiss Innovation Center shows lit interiors more noticeable as the skies darken. Given that the Center is proposed to operate with staggered work hours to lessen traffic impacts, it would be reasonable to conclude that the interiors will be lit much of every night. (9) Height of structure.—I found little if any hypothesis-testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? I would expect that some of the factors noted in other contexts will not be important with the upper portions of high-rises, such as birds attacking reflected self- images, or the extent of vegetation cover nearby, or the presence or absence of birdfeeders nearby. (10) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation, but not convincingly. Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under the measured façades would help. (11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University. It remains unknown to me whether the structural layout of the Zeiss Innovation Center would contribute more or less to the collision risk already posed by the extent of windows, the interior lighting, and nearness to trees and wetlands. (12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016a). Based on what is known, I cannot at this predict whether the project’s location would contribute more 20 or less to the collision risk already posed by the extent of windows, the interior lighting, and nearness to trees and wetlands. (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016a, Ocampo- Peñuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass façade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the façade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m away, birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows. (14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass façades of the Zeiss Innovation Center would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods. (17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds. (18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn’s (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper’s hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide 21 with the Zeiss Innovation Center windows would include Peregrine falcon, red- shouldered hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. (19) Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window. Window Collision Solutions Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited and designed to minimize impacts. However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature. (1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts (1A) Marking windows (1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation (1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation (1D) Managing nocturnal lighting (1A) Marking windows.—Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 67% after placing decals on windows. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. (2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts (2A) Deciding on location of structure (2B) Deciding on façade and orientation (2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows (2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel facades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants (2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs 22 Guidelines on Building Design If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available guidelines on building design intended to minimize collision hazards to birds. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Initial Study presents a false standard for determining whether a project’s impacts will be cumulatively considerable. It implies that a given project impact is cumulatively considerable only when the project impact has not been fully mitigated. The Initial Study further implies that the impact would be cumulatively considerable only if the same impact caused by one or more other projects failed to fully mitigate the impact. In essence, the Initial Study implies that cumulative impacts are really residual impacts left over by inadequate project mitigation. Initially addressing cumulative impacts, Kimley-Horn (2017:85) wrote, “…the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in Biological Resources, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.” This determination is based solely on residual project impacts following proposed mitigation. It neglects impacts caused by existing, ongoing or planned projects with similar types of impacts in the area. Individually mitigated projects do not negate the significance of cumulative impacts. If they did, then CEQA would not require a cumulative effects analysis. Kimley-Horn (2017:86) later addressed one type of cumulative effect when writing, “The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of 23 build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.” However, CEQA’s definition of cumulative effects is broader than incremental impacts. I must also point out that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan did not consider all of the cumulative impacts upon build- out, nor did it propose mitigation measures for them all. For example, there is no mention of window collisions in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There is no plan to mitigate the impacts from the extraordinary extensive glass façades proposed for the Zeiss Innovation Center. Having been prepared in 1994, it is doubtful the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR anticipated the cumulative effects of past, ongoing and planned development projects on burrowing owl, which has declined rapidly in California. It is doubtful it anticipated the circulation of CDFW (2012) guidelines on detection surveys for burrowing owls, which are not the same as the preconstruction take-avoidance surveys recommended at the time. Many of the special-status species appearing in my Table 2 lacked special status in 1994 because cumulative impacts increased since then, changing the status of these species. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR could not have anticipated the widespread damage that West Nile Virus caused to yellow-billed magpie, driving the species’ numbers to the brink of extinction. In 1995 yellow-billed magpies were ubiquitous within their geographic range, including in Dublin, but now each and every project that removes more yellow-billed magpie habitat also generates, in combination with West Nile Virus, a cumulative impact on the species. MITIGATION MEASURES MM Bio-1 Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment According to Kimley-Horn (2017:26), “The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.” This statement, however, is contrary to the steps outlined in the mitigation measure (Table 4). The Initial Study proposes preconstruction take- avoidance surveys instead of detection surveys for burrowing owl. There is a large difference in objectives, methods, and interpretation of results between preconstruction take-avoidance surveys and detection surveys. Given the possibility of burrowing owl presence that was acknowledged in the Initial Study, a detection survey effort would be needed to comply with minimum standards of CEQA. Take-avoidance surveys follow after detection surveys and immediately precede project grading, but take-avoidance surveys cannot replace detection surveys for informing likely levels of take and how best to avoid, minimize or mitigate for take. The mitigation measure is fundamentally flawed by skipping the detection surveys that are intended by CDFW (2012) to precede preconstruction surveys and to inform other mitigation measures. 24 Table 4. Summary of standards in CDFW (2012) mitigation guidelines. Standard from CDFW (2012) Proposed mitigation Is standard met? Seasonal/Spatial Avoidance Avoid disturbing occupied burrows 1 February through 31 August Measure says this will occur Yes Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during nonbreeding season by migratory or resident owls Measure says this will occur Yes Do not destroy burrows through chaining, disking, cultivating or grading Measure says this will occur Yes Implement a worker awareness program to educate workers about burrowing owls Measure says this will occur Yes Place visible markers near burrows to prevent burrow destruction Measure says this will occur Yes Do not poison nuisance animals near burrows known or suspected to have burrowing owls Measure says this will occur Yes Dispense treated grain to poison mammals only in January and February No mention. Unclear Take avoidance surveys (Preconstruction surveys) Complete initial take avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities Surveys no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities No Use methods described for Detection Surveys to inform take mitigation No Detection Survey methods mentioned other than using qualified biologist No Site surveillance Continue monitoring for attempted colonization or re-colonization of areas disturbed by project No mention No Should owls return, implement take avoidance measures to assure no take No mention No Minimizing If protect-in-place is feasible, use buffer zones, visual screens or other measures during project activities No mention No Perform site-specific monitoring to inform of buffer effectiveness No mention No Consult with CDFW on buffer zones No mention No Buffers Rely on CDFW (2012) to establish buffer zones by time of year and level of disturbance No mention No Other minimization measures (such as livestock or vegetation management) 25 Standard from CDFW (2012) Proposed mitigation Is standard met? Eliminate actions that reduce forage or species that excavate burrows used by owls No mention No Eliminate actions that introduce or facilitate predators of burrowing owls No mention other than restriction on domestic animals No Burrow exclusion (evictions is potentially significant impact under CEQA) Only to be performed by qualified biologist(s) Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Ensure that natural or artificial burrows are available on adjacent mitigation sites, which are within 210 m Will follow CDFW (2012). However, no adjacent properties are suitable for fossorial mammals. No No exclusions until a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan is approved by local CDFW office Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Mitigate for permanent loss of occupied burrows and habitat according to ‘Mitigating Impacts’ in CDFW (2012) Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Site monitoring before, during and after exclusion; conduct daily monitoring for one week following exclusion implemented just after breeding season Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Document burrow occupancy should the evicted owls take up residence on adjacent mitigation site Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Translocation to sites >100 m distant is not authorized by CDFW Will follow CDFW (2012). However, this measure will not be possible. No Compensatory mitigation A site should be considered occupied if burrows documented as occupied over recent years Falsely says will follow CDFW (2012); detection surveys needed for this standard No Temporarily disturbed habitat should be restored to pre-project conditions, and permanent habitat protection may be warranted No mention No For permanent impacts, replace lost habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owls based on information provided from surveys in App. A Falsely says will follow CDFW (2012); detection surveys needed for this standard No Ensure mitigation site supports similar vegetation conditions and fossorial animal abundance; mitigation lands may require enhancements Falsely says will follow CDFW (2012); detection surveys needed for this standard No Permanently protect mitigation land through conservation easement deeded to non-profit organization or public agency Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes 26 Standard from CDFW (2012) Proposed mitigation Is standard met? Develop and implement mitigation land management plan for long-term maintenance and sustainability Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Fund the maintenance and management plan over the long term Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Do not destroy or disturb burrowing owl habitat or burrows until mitigation land has been legally secured and management plan and long-term funding are in place Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes Mitigation lands should be on, adjacent or proximate to impact site; otherwise land should be where burrowing owls occur and where conserved lands can be expanded Will follow CDFW (2012) Yes MM BIO-3 Protect Birds Covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Performing preconstruction nesting bird surveys no more than 14 days prior to construction will be too late to protect nesting birds. Detection surveys are needed well in advance of construction in order to find out where birds are nesting and how many are nesting. The information from detection surveys, which are more rigorous that preconstruction surveys, can be used for project planning, estimating of project impacts, and formulation of appropriate mitigation. This approach would be far more effective than risking failed detections due to the rushed nature of preconstruction surveys within 14 days of the tractor blade. (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife Because Kimley-Horn (2017) neglects to consider the use of the site as stop-over habitat for migrating birds, its determination that no mitigation is needed for impacts on wildlife movement is flawed. Worse, Kimley-Horn (2017) neglected to consider the impacts of birds colliding with glass façades of the Zeiss Innovation Center. Below I recommend measures to mitigate window collisions caused by the project. MITIGATING WINDOW COLLISIONS I recommend obtaining and considering the Guidelines on Building Design that I referenced earlier. This said, I will add that should the project go forward, certain mitigation measures could be implemented with experimental design principles that could greatly advance understanding of collision impacts and solutions, and this in itself would qualify as a mitigation measure. 27 Impacts monitoring in BACI Experiment An opportunity for a before-after, control-impact (BACI) design comes only once in the life of a planned building project – at the very beginning. A BACI design would enable the most convincing estimate of window collision mortality ever attempted. It would involve one or more biologists searching two transects for dead birds, one transect along the planned perimeter of the building (impact portion of the design) and one transect on the same property but away from the building (control portion of the design). These transects would be surveyed repeatedly before construction (before phase) and after construction (after phase). With this design, background mortality – mortality due to predation, disease, and other natural causes – can be accounted for and removed from the estimation of window-caused mortality. Along with a BACI design, carcass persistence trials integrated into the fatality monitoring schedule would identify the proportion of fatalities not detected by the searcher, thereby enabling an adjustment to the fatality estimate. The combination of a BACI design and integrated detection trials would generate the most accurate window- caused fatality estimates ever, and with accuracy comes understanding of the magnitude of the problem and what to do about it. This would be a worthy mitigation measure. But even more could be done with a building the likes of which is proposed for the Zeiss Innovation Center. Different types of glass could be installed with different levels of transparency or marking, and these different types could alternate at a spatial scale meaningful to avian perception so that the effects can be measured. In other words the building could be used in an experiment of collision minimization measures by interspersing window treatments. Perhaps the design could actually enhance the appearance of the building, or perhaps it would make no significant difference to the appearance. But Zeiss would be the first to try it, as far as I am aware. The result could be a significant contribution to the scientific foundation of solutions to the ongoing catastrophe of bird collisions with windows. The experiment I propose would concede collision fatalities. Some may see this concession as contrary to mitigation, but I would argue that there is no faster and no more efficient means available to learn about causal factors and solutions than performing experiments where one or more of the treatments maintains known lethality. I have prepared similar experiments around bird and bat collisions with wind turbines. Fund wildlife rehabilitation facilities to rectify collision impacts Wildlife will be killed and injured by the windows of the Zeiss Innovation Center. The impacts to injured wildlife can be rectified by helping to pay the costs of wildlife rehabilitation facilities, which operate on volunteer support and inadequate budgets. Leyvas and Smallwood (2015) surveyed 38 rehabilitation facilities to assess the cost of rehabilitating raptors injured by wind turbines, and recommend $3,230/injured raptor would serve as a reasonable interim mitigation cost. However, wildlife injured by 28 window collisions and car traffic to and from the Center will include animals other than raptors. Most of these non-raptor animals likely cost less to rehabilitate or to care for until those who cannot be released or placed in the care of others need to be euthanized humanely. In the absence of any additional cost summaries from rehabilitation facilities, I hazard to guess that $500 per injured animal would be reasonable. The next challenge is estimating how many animals will require treatment during the life of the project. Live, injured animals will contribute directly to the costs incurred by rehabilitation facilities receiving the animals, but animals killed outright by windows and autos should also be mitigated through one or more compensatory measures. Compensating for animals that are killed can come in the form of rehabilitating animals that were injured by other projects or anthropogenic activities. As a starting point, I suggest assessing $100 per project-caused fatality. Still, there has yet to be a basis for multiplying these dollar amounts by the numbers of killed and injured wildlife caused by the project. And it should be remembered that most of the animals killed will never be documented. There are two ways that project impacts can be assessed for deciding upon a rehabilitation fee. One way is to predict project-level impacts, but this prediction would be highly uncertain. One could use fatality and injury rates from available studies. A projected injury rate could be multiplied by $3,230 per raptor and $500 per non-raptor, and a projected fatality rate could be multiplied by $100 per fatality. So, perhaps for every animal found injured at the Zeiss Innovation Center and delivered to a rehabilitation facility, the cost for the injury is paid ($3230 per raptor and $500 per non-raptor) plus $2,500 is paid for all the projected dead animals per injured animal. The second way to assess the impact is to fund scientific monitoring, as suggested earlier. This second way would necessitate a delay in establishing the cost-basis of the mitigation fee, but learning about the impacts would make the delay worthwhile. As scientific monitoring proceeds, a mitigation fee can be paid based on the injuries and fatalities that are found. Upon completion of the monitoring, an annual fee would be paid based on the average annual findings from the monitoring effort. I suggest splitting a fund among multiple wildlife rehabilitation facilities in the region. Thank you for your attention, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. 29 REFERENCES CITED Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Dublin. 2001. Initial Study and mitigated negative declaration for Cisco Systems Campus. Planning Application Number: 00-029. Dublin, California. Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1–20. DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3. Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerj.460. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564. Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 30 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Kimley-Horn. 2017. Zeiss Innovation Center Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00025. Dublin, California. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Select Visual Signals to Prevent Bird-window Collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI 10.5751/ACE-00787-100206. Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016a. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1 Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. 31 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652 Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bbird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Overing, R. 1938. High Mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, Glass, and Bird–building Collisions in an Urban Park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird Collisions with Glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building Design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. 32 Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Smallwood, K.S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19. WRA. 2017. Biological Resources Assessment: Zeiss Graphite Development Project (APN: 986-14-10) Dublin, Alameda County, California. Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on “Project Birdsafe.” The Loon 82:34-37. 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California. Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two. Cell (530) 601-6857 puma@dcn.org Ecologist Expertise • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities; • Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions. Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience  477 professional publications, including:  81 peer reviewed publications  24 in non-reviewed proceedings  370 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews  8 in mass media outlets  87 public presentations of research results at meetings  Reviewed many professional papers and reports  Testified in 4 court cases. Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The Smallwood CV 2 five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18. Smallwood CV 3 Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225. Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254. Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Smallwood CV 4 Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223. Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524. Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100. Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640. Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro- ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355. Smallwood CV 5 Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001. Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109. Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9:253-261. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35. Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329. Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958. Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847. Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian Smallwood CV 6 carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491. Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160. Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594. Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64. Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White- tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M. Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178. Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis Smallwood CV 7 concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259. Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order. Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67. Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests. Biological Conservation 62:149-159. Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. EXHIBIT B 1 | Page February 12, 2016 Lozeau Drury LLP 410 12th Street Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Attn: Ms. Rebecca L. Davis Subject: Comment Letter on Proposed Zeiss Innovation Center, Research Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Davis: At the request of Lozeau Drury LLP (Lozeau), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project, including the Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Zeiss Innovation Center from the City of Dublin Community Development Department, dated December 8th, 2017 proposed by Kimley Horn (“Applicant”). This IS/MND was issued prematurely without considering the serious flaws in the Proponent’s analysis of the project. The proponents should re-evaluate the impacts of the project and present them in a revised IS/MND because of the serious flaws in the air quality analysis for the Project. Clark’s review of the materials in no way constitutes a validation of the conclusions or materials contained within the plan. If we do not comment on a specific item this does not constitute acceptance of the item. OFFICE 12405 Venice Blvd Suite 331 Los Angeles, CA 90066 PHONE 310-907-6165 FAX 310-398-7626 EMAIL jclark.assoc@gmail.com Clark & Associates Environmental Consulting, Inc. 2 | Page Project Description According to the December 2017 IS/MND Declaration from LSA 1, Carl Zeiss, Inc. (ZEISS) has applied for a Planned Development Zoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit for the Zeiss Innovation Center (the proposed project). The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of a three story 208,650 gross square feet (GSF) Research and Development (R&D) building with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces. Phase 2 would consist of an additional five-story, 224,440 GSF R&D building with 167 surface parking spaces, and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage. At build-out, the proposed project would include two low-to-mid-rise (three-story and five story) R&D buildings totaling 433,090 GSF and used for research, development and testing, light assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting office spaces. Other internal uses would include conference rooms, an employee cafeteria, and a demonstration center/showroom on the ground floor. Parking would include one parking garage with 1,229 spaces and 167 surface parking spaces, for a total of 1,396 spaces. Other miscellaneous exterior features would include a utilities enclosure, trash/ recycling enclosure, nitrogen pad enclosure, bike storage enclosure, loading areas and landscaping. The project site is proposed to accommodate approximately 1,500 employees at building out. The project site was also the subject of a previous IS/MND for the proposed Cisco Systems project in 2003. Cisco withdrew their application prior to entitlement; however, the property owner (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) decided to move forward with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (ESDP) amendments for the project site. In 2003, the City Council amended the General Plan and EDSP from High Density Residential to Campus Office and adopted the Cisco IS/MND which assumed 430,090 square feet of office and R&D space to accommodate 3,000 employees. According to the City, because the Cisco Systems IS/MND was prepared in 2001, updates to biological resources, cultural (historic) resources and transportation/traffic are included in this 1 LSA. 2017. Public Review Draft 2695 West Winton Avenue Industrial Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Hayward, California. Prepared by LSA. Dated December, 2017. Pg. 1-1 3 | Page IS/Supplemental MND to confirm previous findings. It was concluded that biological resources are the only environmental issue where a potential new significant impact could occur. This new significant impact has been analyzed and mitigation proposed as described in the IS/Supplemental MND. The City’s assumption regarding the findings of the previous IS/SMND are suspect at best and contain a serious disregard for the CEQA analysis process. 1. It is my opinion, that the proponents have failed to meet their obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to properly evaluate the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA requires that an environmental review document must contain an accurate description of the entire project. This is because an accurate and complete project description is necessary to perform an adequate evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed project. In contrast, an inaccurate or incomplete project description renders the analysis of environmental impacts inherently unreliable. The proponents rely on the false assumption that the previous IS/MND for the proposed Cisso Systems site prepared in 2001 would cover the requirements for the current project. Since the development of the IS/MND in 2001 numerous changes in the methods to analyze project impacts have been instituted, including the lower of threshold standards, the development of regulatory models for the assessment of enviromental impacts, the addition of specific air toxics thresholds (inclusion of particulate matter from diesel exhasut), and the addition of greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses for each project. Given the significant changes in CEQA process since 2001 and the clearly incomplete project description, it is evident that the IS/SMND is premature and should not have been issued for this project. 2. It is my opinion, that the proponents have failed to meet their obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) perform even a basic air quality analysis of the proposed project. 4 | Page An air quality analysis will (1) adequately screen the project impacts; (2) use the required air dispersion model for determining the ground level concentration of contaminants at the site and in the community; (3) adequately evaluate hazardous emissions from the adjacent roadways; (4) address non-carcinogenic health risks of emissions from the adjacent roadways; (5) analyze potential health risks from TACs during the operational phase of the project, and; (7) identify cumulative impacts. Therefore, an EIR should be prepared to include a thorough evaluation of all air quality issues associated with the project. All projects should be reviewed to ensure that an Adequate Estimate of the Air Quality Burden the Project Will Place on the Air Basin is created. Evaluations of proposed projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must consider the broad impacts on air quality for an air basin. The Project site is located within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and is subject to the requirements for reporting outlined in the District’s guidance. The Project area is designated attainment for the federal and state NO2 and SO2 standards, unclassified for federal and state CO standards, unclassified for the state H2S standard, and non-attainment for the federal and state ozone and PM10 standards. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. 3. No analysis is presented regarding the potential impacts from construction activities at the the project site as is required by BAAQMD guidance. The proponents have failed to provide evidence of any analysis regarding impacts from construction activities at the site. Construction emissions are typically estimated for using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The current model v.2016.3.2, quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. 4. NOx Emissions From Construction Are Likely To Be Significant. Unlike the operational emissions from most projects which are typically more or less continuous, emissions from construction sites are highly variable depending on the type of 5 | Page construction that is being performed. For example, grading results in large quantities of fugitive dust and combustion emissions from diesel-powered equipment. Short-term emissions during the various construction phases can be considerable and may result in degradation of local and regional air quality and severe health effects. The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, establish that impacts on air quality would be significant if a project would violate any ambient air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected violation of an ambient air quality standard. To determine whether such violations occur, it is common practice for lead agencies to compare project emissions to quantitative significance thresholds developed by local air districts as a screening tool for CEQA review. Thresholds of significance for construction emissions are typically expressed on a short-term basis, i.e. daily or hourly basis to adequately capture impacts due to the high variability of emissions during different construction stages. Using the latest version of CalEEMod, v.2016.3.2, and the proposed building parameters for the project for Phase 1 and Phase 2, construction was assumed to take approximately 400 work days . Emissions for those 400 work days would extend over two calendar years (200 days in each calendar year). Phase 1 would consist of a three story, 208,650 gross square feet (GSF) Research and Development (R&D) building with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces. Phase 2 would consist of an additional five-story, 224,440 GSF R&D building with 167 surface parking spaces, and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage Table 1: Total Mitigated Construction Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Construction Emissions Year 1 (tons) 0.629 6.0293 0.2194 0.2052 Average Daily Emissions Year 1 (pounds) 6.29 60.3 2.19 2.05 Total Construction Emissions Year 2 (tons) 2.78 3.32 0.105 0.099 Average Daily Emissions Year 2 (pounds) 27.8 33.2 1.05 0.992 BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Exceed Threshold In Year 1? No Yes No No Exceed Threshold in Year 2? No No No No 6 | Page Based on the construction significance thresholds from other air districts and the amount of time construction is anticipated to take at the site, the project is likely to result in significant adverse impacts on air quality due to emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NOx”), an ozone precursor. Therefore, construction would result in significant adverse impacts on air quality, which was not identified in the IS/MND and were not adequately mitigated. 5. Since the release of the IS/MND for the 2001 Cisco Systems project was released, new sensitive receptors have been identified within the zone of influence for the project. Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities. These are areas where the occupants are more susceptible to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. Two sensitive receptors not identified in the IS/MND neat the project site are the La Petite Academy (a day care center) and the James Dougherty Elementary School. La Petite Academy is located at 3 Sybase Drive, Dublin, CA, approximately 1000 feet east of the proposed project site. The James Dougherty Elementary School is located at 5301 Hibernia Dr, Dublin, CA, approximately 1,600 feet north east of the project site. Neither receptor is mentioned in the IS/MND. 6. The IS/MND ignores the presence of toxic chemicals that have been identited at the project site and does not account for potential health risks from exposure to the chemicals. The southeastern portion of the project site is identified in the Geotracker database as the Santa Rita Property (SL#18386806). According to the Regulatory Profile of the site, the Santa Rita Property contains tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and carbon tetrachloride in soil and groundwater. All three compounds are known to be carcinogenic or teratogenic compounds to the State of California. No health risk assessment of the future land use based upon the current conditions is presented in the IS/MND. 7 | Page Conclusion The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that Proponent has failed to adequately describe the project and the current environmental conditions; identify sensitive receptors in the area; that would the Project will result in significant adverse impacts that were not identified in the IS/MND and that are not adequately mitigated. Many of the IS/MND’s conclusions that environmental impacts are not significant or less than significant with mitigation are unsupported or contradicted by the evidence. As a result, several analyses presented in the IS/MND, including impacts on air quality, fail to identify or disclose the magnitude of significant adverse impacts. To protect air quality and public health the Proponent must prepare a revised IS/MND for the Project. Sincerely, Project Characteristics - Land Use - Lot size is 11.36 acres total 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Research & Development 208.65 1000sqft 11.36 208,650.00 0 Research & Development 224.44 1000sqft 0.00 224,440.00 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 1,229.00 Space 0.00 491,600.00 0 Parking Lot 167.00 Space 0.00 66,800.00 0 Parking Lot 663.00 Space 0.00 265,200.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2020Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Zeiss Dublin Alameda County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 1 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.79 11.36 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.15 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 11.06 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.50 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.97 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 2 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2018 0.6290 6.0293 4.2864 0.0122 0.6682 0.2194 0.8876 0.2254 0.2052 0.4307 0.0000 1,127.003 1 1,127.003 1 0.1314 0.0000 1,130.288 6 2019 2.7821 3.3232 2.5930 8.2900e- 003 0.3435 0.1054 0.4489 0.0934 0.0992 0.1926 0.0000 763.6157 763.6157 0.0722 0.0000 765.4194 Maximum 2.7821 6.0293 4.2864 0.0122 0.6682 0.2194 0.8876 0.2254 0.2052 0.4307 0.0000 1,127.003 1 1,127.003 1 0.1314 0.0000 1,130.288 6 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2018 0.6290 6.0293 4.2864 0.0122 0.6682 0.2194 0.8876 0.2254 0.2052 0.4307 0.0000 1,127.002 7 1,127.002 7 0.1314 0.0000 1,130.288 2 2019 2.7821 3.3232 2.5930 8.2900e- 003 0.3435 0.1054 0.4489 0.0934 0.0992 0.1926 0.0000 763.6155 763.6155 0.0722 0.0000 765.4192 Maximum 2.7821 6.0293 4.2864 0.0122 0.6682 0.2194 0.8876 0.2254 0.2052 0.4307 0.0000 1,127.002 7 1,127.002 7 0.1314 0.0000 1,130.288 2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 3 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 1.9899 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 Energy 0.0578 0.5254 0.4414 3.1500e- 003 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0000 1,835.743 6 1,835.743 6 0.0681 0.0223 1,844.094 5 Mobile 0.8771 5.7211 9.9076 0.0340 2.5264 0.0412 2.5676 0.6792 0.0389 0.7180 0.0000 3,127.782 0 3,127.782 0 0.1396 0.0000 3,131.271 5 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6804 0.0000 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 67.5585 335.2057 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 Total 2.9248 6.2468 10.3720 0.0371 2.5264 0.0812 2.6076 0.6792 0.0789 0.7581 74.2389 5,298.775 8 5,373.014 7 7.5567 0.1893 5,618.339 3 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 2-12-2018 5-11-2018 1.7726 1.7726 2 5-12-2018 8-11-2018 1.9064 1.9064 3 8-12-2018 11-11-2018 1.9191 1.9191 4 11-12-2018 2-11-2019 1.8654 1.8654 5 2-12-2019 5-11-2019 1.7144 1.7144 6 5-12-2019 8-11-2019 2.4900 2.4900 7 8-12-2019 9-30-2019 1.0532 1.0532 Highest 2.4900 2.4900 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 4 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 1.9899 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 Energy 0.0578 0.5254 0.4414 3.1500e- 003 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0000 1,835.743 6 1,835.743 6 0.0681 0.0223 1,844.094 5 Mobile 0.8771 5.7211 9.9076 0.0340 2.5264 0.0412 2.5676 0.6792 0.0389 0.7180 0.0000 3,127.782 0 3,127.782 0 0.1396 0.0000 3,131.271 5 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6804 0.0000 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 67.5585 335.2057 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 Total 2.9248 6.2468 10.3720 0.0371 2.5264 0.0812 2.6076 0.6792 0.0789 0.7581 74.2389 5,298.775 8 5,373.014 7 7.5567 0.1893 5,618.339 3 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 5 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 2/12/2018 3/9/2018 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/10/2018 3/23/2018 5 10 3 Grading Grading 3/24/2018 5/4/2018 5 30 4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/5/2018 6/28/2019 5 300 5 Paving Paving 6/29/2019 7/26/2019 5 20 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/27/2019 8/23/2019 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 649,635; Non-Residential Outdoor: 216,545; Striped Parking Area: 49,416 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 75 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 6 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 7 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0372 0.3832 0.2230 3.9000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 35.1241 35.1241 9.6800e- 003 0.0000 35.3660 Total 0.0372 0.3832 0.2230 3.9000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 35.1241 35.1241 9.6800e- 003 0.0000 35.3660 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 485.00 206.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 97.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 8 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.9300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1207 1.1207 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1216 Total 6.3000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.9300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1207 1.1207 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1216 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0372 0.3832 0.2230 3.9000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 35.1240 35.1240 9.6800e- 003 0.0000 35.3660 Total 0.0372 0.3832 0.2230 3.9000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 35.1240 35.1240 9.6800e- 003 0.0000 35.3660 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 9 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.3000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.9300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1207 1.1207 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1216 Total 6.3000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 4.9300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1207 1.1207 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1216 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 004 0.0129 0.0129 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 17.3800 17.3800 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 17.5152 Total 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 004 0.0903 0.0129 0.1032 0.0497 0.0119 0.0615 0.0000 17.3800 17.3800 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 17.5152 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 10 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6724 0.6724 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6730 Total 3.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6724 0.6724 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6730 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 004 0.0129 0.0129 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 17.3799 17.3799 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 17.5152 Total 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 004 0.0903 0.0129 0.1032 0.0497 0.0119 0.0615 0.0000 17.3799 17.3799 5.4100e- 003 0.0000 17.5152 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 11 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6724 0.6724 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6730 Total 3.8000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 2.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.6724 0.6724 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6730 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1301 0.0000 0.1301 0.0540 0.0000 0.0540 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0764 0.8928 0.5263 9.3000e- 004 0.0395 0.0395 0.0364 0.0364 0.0000 84.9728 84.9728 0.0265 0.0000 85.6341 Total 0.0764 0.8928 0.5263 9.3000e- 004 0.1301 0.0395 0.1696 0.0540 0.0364 0.0903 0.0000 84.9728 84.9728 0.0265 0.0000 85.6341 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 12 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2600e- 003 9.9000e- 004 9.8500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 6.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.2414 2.2414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2432 Total 1.2600e- 003 9.9000e- 004 9.8500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 6.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.2414 2.2414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2432 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1301 0.0000 0.1301 0.0540 0.0000 0.0540 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0764 0.8928 0.5263 9.3000e- 004 0.0395 0.0395 0.0364 0.0364 0.0000 84.9727 84.9727 0.0265 0.0000 85.6340 Total 0.0764 0.8928 0.5263 9.3000e- 004 0.1301 0.0395 0.1696 0.0540 0.0364 0.0903 0.0000 84.9727 84.9727 0.0265 0.0000 85.6340 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 13 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2600e- 003 9.9000e- 004 9.8500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 6.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.2414 2.2414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2432 Total 1.2600e- 003 9.9000e- 004 9.8500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.3900e- 003 6.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.2414 2.2414 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2432 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2291 1.9999 1.5031 2.3000e- 003 0.1282 0.1282 0.1206 0.1206 0.0000 203.2910 203.2910 0.0498 0.0000 204.5361 Total 0.2291 1.9999 1.5031 2.3000e- 003 0.1282 0.1282 0.1206 0.1206 0.0000 203.2910 203.2910 0.0498 0.0000 204.5361 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 14 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0875 2.3742 0.5422 4.9400e- 003 0.1157 0.0169 0.1326 0.0335 0.0162 0.0497 0.0000 472.3812 472.3812 0.0302 0.0000 473.1369 Worker 0.1738 0.1364 1.3615 3.4300e- 003 0.3279 2.3900e- 003 0.3303 0.0872 2.2100e- 003 0.0894 0.0000 309.8196 309.8196 9.7200e- 003 0.0000 310.0625 Total 0.2613 2.5106 1.9038 8.3700e- 003 0.4435 0.0193 0.4629 0.1207 0.0184 0.1391 0.0000 782.2008 782.2008 0.0400 0.0000 783.1994 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2291 1.9998 1.5031 2.3000e- 003 0.1282 0.1282 0.1206 0.1206 0.0000 203.2907 203.2907 0.0498 0.0000 204.5359 Total 0.2291 1.9998 1.5031 2.3000e- 003 0.1282 0.1282 0.1206 0.1206 0.0000 203.2907 203.2907 0.0498 0.0000 204.5359 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 15 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0875 2.3742 0.5422 4.9400e- 003 0.1157 0.0169 0.1326 0.0335 0.0162 0.0497 0.0000 472.3812 472.3812 0.0302 0.0000 473.1369 Worker 0.1738 0.1364 1.3615 3.4300e- 003 0.3279 2.3900e- 003 0.3303 0.0872 2.2100e- 003 0.0894 0.0000 309.8196 309.8196 9.7200e- 003 0.0000 310.0625 Total 0.2613 2.5106 1.9038 8.3700e- 003 0.4435 0.0193 0.4629 0.1207 0.0184 0.1391 0.0000 782.2008 782.2008 0.0400 0.0000 783.1994 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1523 1.3596 1.1071 1.7400e- 003 0.0832 0.0832 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 151.6422 151.6422 0.0369 0.0000 152.5657 Total 0.1523 1.3596 1.1071 1.7400e- 003 0.0832 0.0832 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 151.6422 151.6422 0.0369 0.0000 152.5657 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 16 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0599 1.6993 0.3759 3.7000e- 003 0.0873 0.0109 0.0981 0.0252 0.0104 0.0356 0.0000 353.9324 353.9324 0.0218 0.0000 354.4776 Worker 0.1184 0.0903 0.9123 2.5100e- 003 0.2473 1.7600e- 003 0.2491 0.0658 1.6200e- 003 0.0674 0.0000 226.8894 226.8894 6.4700e- 003 0.0000 227.0512 Total 0.1783 1.7896 1.2882 6.2100e- 003 0.3346 0.0126 0.3472 0.0910 0.0120 0.1031 0.0000 580.8218 580.8218 0.0283 0.0000 581.5288 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1523 1.3596 1.1071 1.7400e- 003 0.0832 0.0832 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 151.6420 151.6420 0.0369 0.0000 152.5656 Total 0.1523 1.3596 1.1071 1.7400e- 003 0.0832 0.0832 0.0782 0.0782 0.0000 151.6420 151.6420 0.0369 0.0000 152.5656 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 17 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0599 1.6993 0.3759 3.7000e- 003 0.0873 0.0109 0.0981 0.0252 0.0104 0.0356 0.0000 353.9324 353.9324 0.0218 0.0000 354.4776 Worker 0.1184 0.0903 0.9123 2.5100e- 003 0.2473 1.7600e- 003 0.2491 0.0658 1.6200e- 003 0.0674 0.0000 226.8894 226.8894 6.4700e- 003 0.0000 227.0512 Total 0.1783 1.7896 1.2882 6.2100e- 003 0.3346 0.0126 0.3472 0.0910 0.0120 0.1031 0.0000 580.8218 580.8218 0.0283 0.0000 581.5288 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0145 0.1524 0.1467 2.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003 8.2500e- 003 7.5900e- 003 7.5900e- 003 0.0000 20.4752 20.4752 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.6371 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0145 0.1524 0.1467 2.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003 8.2500e- 003 7.5900e- 003 7.5900e- 003 0.0000 20.4752 20.4752 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.6371 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 18 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.3700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0879 1.0879 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0887 Total 5.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.3700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0879 1.0879 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0887 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0145 0.1524 0.1467 2.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003 8.2500e- 003 7.5900e- 003 7.5900e- 003 0.0000 20.4752 20.4752 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.6371 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0145 0.1524 0.1467 2.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003 8.2500e- 003 7.5900e- 003 7.5900e- 003 0.0000 20.4752 20.4752 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.6371 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 19 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.3700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0879 1.0879 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0887 Total 5.7000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.3700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.0879 1.0879 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0887 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 2.4301 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6600e- 003 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5587 Total 2.4327 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5587 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 20 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6700e- 003 2.8000e- 003 0.0283 8.0000e- 005 7.6700e- 003 5.0000e- 005 7.7200e- 003 2.0400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.0900e- 003 0.0000 7.0353 7.0353 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.0404 Total 3.6700e- 003 2.8000e- 003 0.0283 8.0000e- 005 7.6700e- 003 5.0000e- 005 7.7200e- 003 2.0400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.0900e- 003 0.0000 7.0353 7.0353 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.0404 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 2.4301 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6600e- 003 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5586 Total 2.4327 0.0184 0.0184 3.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5586 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 21 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6700e- 003 2.8000e- 003 0.0283 8.0000e- 005 7.6700e- 003 5.0000e- 005 7.7200e- 003 2.0400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.0900e- 003 0.0000 7.0353 7.0353 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.0404 Total 3.6700e- 003 2.8000e- 003 0.0283 8.0000e- 005 7.6700e- 003 5.0000e- 005 7.7200e- 003 2.0400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 2.0900e- 003 0.0000 7.0353 7.0353 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.0404 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 22 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.8771 5.7211 9.9076 0.0340 2.5264 0.0412 2.5676 0.6792 0.0389 0.7180 0.0000 3,127.782 0 3,127.782 0 0.1396 0.0000 3,131.271 5 Unmitigated 0.8771 5.7211 9.9076 0.0340 2.5264 0.0412 2.5676 0.6792 0.0389 0.7180 0.0000 3,127.782 0 3,127.782 0 0.1396 0.0000 3,131.271 5 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Research & Development 1,692.15 396.44 231.60 3,254,109 3,254,109 Research & Development 1,820.21 426.44 249.13 3,500,371 3,500,371 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3,512.36 822.87 480.73 6,754,480 6,754,480 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3 Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 23 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,263.738 2 1,263.738 2 0.0571 0.0118 1,268.689 9 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1,263.738 2 1,263.738 2 0.0571 0.0118 1,268.689 9 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0578 0.5254 0.4414 3.1500e- 003 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0000 572.0055 572.0055 0.0110 0.0105 575.4046 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0578 0.5254 0.4414 3.1500e- 003 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0000 572.0055 572.0055 0.0110 0.0105 575.4046 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Research & Development 0.558186 0.040947 0.190770 0.110456 0.017401 0.005228 0.022658 0.042795 0.002118 0.002805 0.005569 0.000308 0.000759 Parking Lot 0.558186 0.040947 0.190770 0.110456 0.017401 0.005228 0.022658 0.042795 0.002118 0.002805 0.005569 0.000308 0.000759 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.558186 0.040947 0.190770 0.110456 0.017401 0.005228 0.022658 0.042795 0.002118 0.002805 0.005569 0.000308 0.000759 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 24 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research & Development 5.16409e +006 0.0279 0.2531 0.2126 1.5200e- 003 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 275.5754 275.5754 5.2800e- 003 5.0500e- 003 277.2130 Research & Development 5.55489e +006 0.0300 0.2723 0.2287 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0000 296.4301 296.4301 5.6800e- 003 5.4300e- 003 298.1916 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0578 0.5254 0.4414 3.1500e- 003 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0000 572.0055 572.0055 0.0110 0.0105 575.4046 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 25 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research & Development 5.16409e +006 0.0279 0.2531 0.2126 1.5200e- 003 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 275.5754 275.5754 5.2800e- 003 5.0500e- 003 277.2130 Research & Development 5.55489e +006 0.0300 0.2723 0.2287 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0000 296.4301 296.4301 5.6800e- 003 5.4300e- 003 298.1916 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0578 0.5254 0.4414 3.1500e- 003 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0399 0.0000 572.0055 572.0055 0.0110 0.0105 575.4046 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 26 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Parking Lot 23380 6.8015 3.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 6.8282 Parking Lot 92820 27.0024 1.2200e- 003 2.5000e- 004 27.1082 Research & Development 1.57739e +006 458.8820 0.0208 4.2900e- 003 460.6800 Research & Development 1.69677e +006 493.6088 0.0223 4.6200e- 003 495.5429 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 953704 277.4434 0.0126 2.6000e- 003 278.5305 Total 1,263.738 1 0.0572 0.0118 1,268.689 9 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 27 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Parking Lot 23380 6.8015 3.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 6.8282 Parking Lot 92820 27.0024 1.2200e- 003 2.5000e- 004 27.1082 Research & Development 1.57739e +006 458.8820 0.0208 4.2900e- 003 460.6800 Research & Development 1.69677e +006 493.6088 0.0223 4.6200e- 003 495.5429 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 953704 277.4434 0.0126 2.6000e- 003 278.5305 Total 1,263.738 1 0.0572 0.0118 1,268.689 9 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 28 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 1.9899 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 Unmitigated 1.9899 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2430 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.7447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.1700e- 003 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 Total 1.9899 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 29 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.2430 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 1.7447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.1700e- 003 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 Total 1.9899 2.1000e- 004 0.0231 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.0475 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 30 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 Unmitigated 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research & Development 212.948 / 0 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 31 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research & Development 212.948 / 0 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 402.7642 6.9541 0.1670 626.3753 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 32 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Unmitigated 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research & Development 32.91 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 33 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research & Development 32.91 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.6804 0.3948 0.0000 16.5505 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 34 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 2/12/2018 10:23 PMPage 35 of 35 Zeiss Dublin - Alameda County, Annual James J. J. Clark, Ph.D. Principal Toxicologist Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling Education: Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience: Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research. Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following: LITIGATION SUPPORT Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Clark & Associates Environmental Consulting, Inc OFFICE 12405 Venice Blvd. Suite 331 Los Angeles, CA 90066 PHONE 310-907-6165 FAX 310-398-7626 EMAIL jclark.assoc@gmail.com Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action. NC041739 Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants. Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G. Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia. Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL. Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff. Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344 Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question. Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant. Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247 Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant. SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS Client – Confidential Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation. Client – Confidential Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation. Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports. Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports. Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation. Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals. EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD. Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment. Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation. Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands. Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals. Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for non- public health professionals. Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort. Client: Confidential, Escondido, California Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense non- aqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals. Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site. Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site. Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fifty- year old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency. Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site. Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school). The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology. Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin. IT Corporation, North Carolina Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels. Professional Associations American Public Health Association (APHA) Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS) California Redevelopment Association (CRA) International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations: Books and Book Chapters Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA. Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water: Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C. Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York. Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment. Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York. Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI. Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96. Journal and Proceeding Articles Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN. March 20, 2003. Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003. Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999. Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD). Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998. Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water. Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998. Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors. Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998. Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997. Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14. Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118. Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96. Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88. McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91. Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70. Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41. EXHIBIT C February 12, 2018 Ms. Rebecca Davis Lozeau Drury 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Subject: Zeiss Innovation Center Project Supplemental IS/MND P18006 Dear Ms. Davis: At your request, I have reviewed the Supplemental Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (the “IS/MND”) for the Zeiss Innovation Center Project (the “Project”) in the City of Dublin (the ”City”). The Project involves a two-phased construction of Research & Development facilities at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. Phase 1 involves construction of a 208,656 square foot research and development building and 663 surface parking spaces. Phase two involves construction of a 224,440 square foot research and development building, retention of 167 of the original surface parking spaces and replacement of the balance of surface parking with a 1229 space garage structure for an overall total of 1396 spaces. My review is specific to the traffic and transportation section of the IS/MND and its supporting documentation. My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic Engineer in California and over 49 years professional consulting engineering practice in the traffic and transportation industry. I have both prepared and performed adequacy reviews of numerous transportation and circulation sections of environmental impact reports prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) including similar research and development projects. My professional resume is attached. Findings of my review are summarized below. Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 2 The IS/MND Trip Generation Analysis Is Understated Because It Mischaracterizes the Nature of the Project The IS/MND analyzes the proposed Project at the trip generation rates for ITE land use category 760, R & D Center (Research and Development) using the trip rates per thousand square feet for this use category. The problem is that R & D facilities ordinarily have very large square footages per employee to allow spaces for laboratories, assembly and experimentation. The IS/MND indicates that at full development (433,096 square feet) the Project will provide workspace for 1500 employees. This translates to 288.7 square feet per employee and 3.46 employees per thousand square feet, more like general office (ITE land use category 710) employee densities. If the IS/MND traffic analysis had used the per employee trip rates for R & D category 710 instead of the per thousand square foot rates for this category, it would have found that the Project would generate 4155 daily 645 AM peak and 615 PM peak gross trips instead of the respective gross totals of 3391, 465 and 445 it did disclose. The gross totals based on R & D rates per employee are respectively 22.5, 38.7 and 38.2 percent higher in the daily, AM and PM peak periods than those based on the square footage of floor area. Had the IS/MND used the category 710 General Office rates that the very high employee densities suggest it should have, it would have disclosed the gross trip totals of 4777 trips daily, 676 in the AM peak and 645 in the PM peak, trip totals even higher yet than those determined at the R & D per employee rates. The IS/MND's failure to consider the unusually high employee density proposed in this Project results in a clear and significant understatement of trip generation. Had the analysis analyzed the Project's trip generation at least at R & D per employee rather than per thousand square foot rates, the subsequent analysis of the existing + phase 2 build-out scenario would certainly have found that with about 38 percent more traffic in the AM peak, the Project would cause the intersection of Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard to deteriorate to deficient level- of-service (LOS) E conditions, a significant impact. The queuing problems at this location that the IS/MND traffic analysis discloses would also be exacerbated. We also note that Appendix E, Table 3 and the related narrative is misleading in indicating that the proposed Project would generate less traffic than the previously approved Cisco project for the site. The Cisco project only appears to have higher trip generation because the IS/MND analysis failed to account for the unusually high employee density proposed in the current Project. Because the subject Project, if properly analyzed, would clearly generate about 20 to 22 percent more trips than were analyzed, this IS/MND cannot rely on any of the computations and findings of the traffic studies for the Cisco project. Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 3 The IS/MND Fails To Analyze Impacts at Key Intersections in the Project Vicinity The IS/MND analyzed project trip distribution and Level-of-Service (LOS impacts at only 6 intersections in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. It fails to trace Project trip distribution and to analyze LOS impacts at other key intersections in the Project vicinity that are on the principal routes linking the Project site with the rest of the region. Among the key intersections likely to be affected by Project traffic but not analyzed are: • Dublin Boulevard with Hacienda Drive • Hacienda Drive with I-580 eastbound and westbound ramps • Dublin Boulevard with Dougherty Road • Dougherty Road /Hopyard Road with I-580 westbound off and eastbound on ramps. To be adequate, the IS/MND must analyze traffic impacts at these locations. The IS/MND Fails To Analyze Project Traffic Impacts on Freeway Ramps and Mainline Segments in the Project Vicinity The IS/MND provides absolutely no analysis of the Project's traffic impacts on the I-580 and I-680 freeway mainlines and ramp systems that provide regional access to the Project site. A Project that generates a net of 372 AM peak hour trips and 355 PM peak hour trips (after deduction of an assumed 20 percent transportation demand management (TDM) credit)1 is certainly likely to result in enough trips using the freeway mainline and ramp systems to be consequential. To be adequate, the IS/MND must extend the reporting of its trip distribution onto the freeway ramp and mainline system and perform analyses of impacts in a manner consistent with the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans') procedures for analyzing impacts on the State Highway System. Those procedures and guidelines can be found at the web address footnoted below.2 We also note that conditions on the freeways are significantly different (traffic is much heavier) than existed and was projected in the EDSP DEIR. For example, the EDSP DEIR (see Figure 3.3-E) indicates that existing daily traffic volume on I-580 between the Hacienda and Tassajara interchanges was 135,000 vehicles and projected it would be184,000 vehicles in 2010 and 189,000 at full build-out. Caltrans data for 2016 at this location indicates a volume of 213,000. For perspective, the count at this location at the time the Cisco analysis was 1 These are the trip generation totals using the understated trip generation rates (see discussion in first section of commentary above) after application of a 20 percent TDM discount. Had proper trip generation rates been applied the trip numbers would be about 38 percent higher. 2 www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr_ceqa_files/tis. Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 4 performed was 177,000. The current volume is 12.7 percent higher than the projected build-out volume in the EDSP DEIR. Similarly, Figure 3.3-E indicates that between the Hacienda and Dougherty/Hopyard interchanges, I-580 had an existing daily volume of 135,000, would have a 2010 volume of 191,000 and a build-out volume of 194,000. Caltrans data indicates that the 2016 volume at this location was 233,000. This is 20.1 percent higher than the ultimate volume projected in the EDSP DEIR. For perspective, the count at this location at the time the Cisco analysis was performed was 183,000. Because of these considerably changed conditions from what was analyzed in the EDSP DEIR, the lack of a freeway analysis in the current IS/MND is a crucial flaw. The IS/MND Fails to Provide A Valid Cumulative Analysis The IS/MND provides no cumulative analysis at the omitted intersections mentioned above or on freeway ramps and mainline segments. At the intersections that are analyzed compared to conditions that existed in 2016, only the intersections of Central Parkway with Park Plaza and Dublin Boulevard with Park Plaza are analyzed for the cumulative situation. The rest are referenced to the EDSP EIR traffic analysis which was prepared in the 1992 to 1993 period, 25 years ago. There is no demonstration that the traffic projections of 25 years ago remain relevant given the development and traffic changes that have taken place in the intervening quarter-century period; not just in the EDSP area or all of Dublin, but in the neighboring communities and parts of the region that affect traffic in and around Dublin. To rely on forecasts and analysis 25 years old, there must be some verification of its relevance to the present and future. Furthermore, the content of the EDSP EIR traffic section is mostly conclusory. For example, it presents end result delay/LOS projections for intersections. There are no turning movement volume data and computation sheets that would normally be provided in an appendix to the EIR. In addition, the methodology for computing delay and level of service employed in the 25 year old document has undergone significant changes in three subsequent editions of the Highway Capacity Manual. A current computation on the same intersection movement data set as was assumed in the EDSP DEIR would produce different delay results and potentially different LOS ratings. This makes the IS/MND action of simply referencing the EDSP DEIR results as the cumulative analysis for the current Project, as IS/MND Appendix E does on Figure 15, inadequate as a cumulative analysis. Because of the conclusory nature of the EDSP EIR traffic chapter, we checked the volume of appendices to the EDSP EIR. However, that volume contains no Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 5 traffic appendix. On further request, the City provided three additional documents from Administrative Record. The first is a memo from Michael Aronson of DKS Associates to Mr. Mehran Sepehri of the City Public Works Department dated October 20, 1992. The memo indicates it is transmitting intersection capacity calculations for various scenarios supporting the EDSP DEIR traffic analysis. However, the attachment to the memo contains just the section dividers for the various scenarios; there is no calculation sheet content between the section dividers. Only at the last page and a half of the document, which appear to be BATES numbered 2584 and 2585 are there calculation sheets. They are for the PM peak hour for a scenario labeled on the sheets as ED7 MIT and involve calculation sheets for the intersections of Airway with the I- 580 westbound ramps, Airway with Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road with Dublin Boulevard. This fragmentary content is insufficient evidence to establish that EDSP DEIR traffic analysis remains relevant as a cumulative analysis for the current IS/MND at the locations where the IS/MND refers the reader to the EDSP EIR for cumulative traffic analysis. The calculation sheets do establish however, that the EDSP EIR traffic analysis was carried out under procedures of the 1984 Highway Capacity Manual, procedures that have been superseded by three subsequent editions of the Manual, which completely change the definition of delay as measured in the calculations. A second supplemental document provided from the EDSP EIR Administrative Record is 3 pages BATES numbered, as best can be read from the reproductions, 3776, 3846 and 3848. They are comprised of a set of roadway cross-sections for various classifications of roadways and two pages of capital improvement cost estimates, presumably based on the roadway cross-sections. This material has no apparent relevance to the subject Zeiss IS/MND. The third supplemental document produced is Section 3.3 of the EDSP DEIR, the traffic and transportation section, this copy BATES numbered 136 through 169. Since the entire DEIR was already in our possession, this copy of Section 3.3 adds nothing to the discussion. It is quite apparent that the IS/MND has relied upon cumulative calculations that no longer exist and that would be irrelevant if they did exist since the definition of delay has changed. Assumption of 20 Percent Trip Reduction Through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Is Excessive The IS/MND Appendix E traffic analysis on Table 3 indicates that some 465 gross vehicle trips 3 would arrive or depart the Project site in the AM peak hour4. 3 Before application of TDM discounts. 4 PM peak hour trips are slightly lower. For clarity, we limit this discussion to the AM peak while recognizing the same circumstances apply to the PM peak. Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 6 This could account for up to 31 percent of the Project's 1500 employees arriving in the peak hour as auto drivers. The balance - at least 69 percent of the employees - either arrive/depart by shared ride (carpool/vanpool), transit (BART/bus), bike, walk or by traveling outside the peak hour (flex-time/staggered shifts). What the Appendix D traffic analysis asks the public to believe is that, with at least 69 percent of the Project employees already doing the things a TDM program is supposed to achieve, by various non-coercive actions and incentives, it can squeeze out another 20 percent of the 31 percent of employees who do drive in the peak hour. When placed in context of the enormous share of Project employee travel that the analysis, without stating it, already assumes to be doing the things TDM is supposed to achieve, the prospect of TDM squeezing out another 20 percent of those who do drive in the peak hour seems quite unlikely. We now examine the individual TDM proposals and the plausibility of them achieving desired results. The TDM measures and their estimated trip reduction consequences are summarized in Appendix E, Table 2. The table indicates that the combination of providing shuttle services between the Project site and BART, subsidizing BART tickets, providing subsidies for bus transit fares, and employer sponsored carpool and ride matching programs would together result in an 11 percent reduction in peak hour traffic to the Project. However, with only up to 31 percent of employees driving to/from the site in the peak hour and 69 percent or more doing something else, it is highly likely that virtually all of those with reasonable opportunity to use BART or bus transit are inherently assumed to be doing so and that providing shuttles and fare incentives, while useful as a perk and amenity, will have limited effect on changing individual's mode choice. The carpool and vanpool matching programs, while highly useful in establishing initial pooling patterns and introducing new employees to pooling opportunities, also probably does not change the unstated pooling percentage inherent in the gross trip generation assumptions. Appendix E, Table 2 indicates that preferential carpool and vanpool parking would reduce by 3 percent the gross number of assumed peak hour drivers. With these totaling not more than 31 percent of employees and with the Project providing presumably free parking for up to 93 percent of employees, it is doubtful that providing a guaranteed space close to the building doors or on the ground floor of the garage sheltered from summer heat and winter rains would induce many people who would otherwise drive alone in the peak hour to join a pool. The subject table indicates that on-site car share programs would result in a 2 percent reduction in peak hour trip generation. This is an excellent perk for those who do take transit or ride-share, but, of the 31 or less percent of employees who do drive in the peak hour, it would only affect those who do have other Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 7 reasonable options and whose primary reason for driving is their perceived need to run midday errands or keep appointments or just to get well away from the workplace during the lunch hour. Whether people so motivated account for 2 percent of the 31 percent of employees who are assumed to drive in the peak hour is questionable. Table 2 also indicates that flex-time and staggered work shifts would result in a 1 percent reduction in the limited percentage of employees the analysis assumes do drive in the peak hour. This ignores the fact the trip generation analysis already inherently assumes a large spreading of the peak reflecting flex time or staggered shifts. It also ignores the fact that flex time and staggered shifts inherently work counter to ride-share pool formation. Table 2 indicates that providing bike lockers and locker rooms with showers would reduce the number of employees who drive in the peak hour by 2 percent. This is an excellent perk for those who have the reasonable opportunity and will to bike to and from work. And certainly there will be individuals who live in reasonable biking distance along safe bikeable routes who might be deterred from biking to work if there were not secure bike storage facilities and a place to shower and change clothes. But whether this constitutes 2 percent of the less than 31 percent of employees the analysis assumes drive to work in the peak hour is debatable. And it must be recognized that biking to work tends to be a seasonal phenomenon for many who bike to work. In winter, when the hours of darkness extend into the peak commute hours and inclement weather prevails, there is less propensity for bicycling to/from work. Finally, Table 2 indicates a TDM Kiosk and Coordinator would result in a 1 percent reduction in those who drive to/from work in the peak hour. We agree that the kiosk and coordinator is vital when the buildings are newly occupied and continuingly useful over time as new employees are introduced to the workplace. But whether it causes a 1 percent reduction in the number of employees assumed to drive in the peak hour is unproven and debatable. In summary, while the TDM measures are all desirable, particularly as perks to attract a workforce to the site, and while the percentage reductions ascribed to individual measures seem deceptively small, when the initial gross peak hour trip generation is compared to the total workforce, it becomes obvious that the number of workers driving to/from the site in the peak hour is so small that a 20 percent reduction in that is hardly plausible. Conclusion This concludes my current comments on the Zeiss Innovation Center Project IS/MND. For the reasons stated above, the traffic analysis is inadequate and an extensively revised traffic. We also note that revision to the traffic analysis may Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 8 necessitate revised air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. Because there is fair argument that the Project would, more likely than not, cause significant traffic impacts, a full EIR on it is required. Sincerely, Smith Engineering & Management A California Corporation Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. President Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 9 Attachment 1 Resume of Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E. Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 10 Ms. Rebecca Davis February 12, 2018 Page 11 Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and San Diego Lindberg. Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco; and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities. Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts throughout western United States. Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking . Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.), Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on neighborhood traffic control. Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped. MEMBERSHIPS Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989. Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984. Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979. Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research Record 570, 1976. Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with Donald Appleyard, 1979. EXHIBIT D 625 2nd Street, Suite 210, Petaluma, CA 94952 | 707-769-2289 | www.awsciences.com Heidi M. Bauer, PG 625 2nd Street, Suite 210 Petaluma, CA 94952 February 12, 2018 Rebecca L. Davis, Associate Attorney Lozeau | Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Subject: Review of Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections of the May 2017 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND/IS) plus Technical Appendices- Ferrante Apartments Project (NV-2015-0490-MND) Dear Ms. Davis, Please find the following review of the documents prepared for the Carl Zeiss project located on the northeast corner of Dublin Blvd and Arnold Drive. This review pertains only to the Hazards and Hazard Materials concerns of the Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND and the Cisco Initial Study. The documents reviewed are the 2018 Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the 2001 Cisco Initial Study, and the Lowney Associates 2000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Subsurface investigations. Site Background The site is 11.36 net acres of land (APN: 9860014-010-00) located on the corner of Dublin Blvd and Arnold Road. The site is currently vacant. The site functioned as a US Naval facility (Camp Shoemaker) from the early 1940’s up until about 1949. Of interest to the subject site is two former fuel stations located on the property; one in the northwest portion of the property and one in the southwest of the property. Parcel 15A also contained an inflammable storage building, public works office and shop, transportation shop and barracks, and another unidentified building (Lowney 2000). A former laundry and boiler room was located on the adjacent parcel to the east (Parcel 15B). The Zeiss Innovation Center is being proposed on the former Parcel 15A site. Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Previous soil, soil vapor and groundwater investigations Several soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations were conducted between 1998 to 2000 in response to directives from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and also in preparation for the pending CISCO project which ultimately did not go forward. The main areas of concern for the project (Parcel 15A) is the area of the former fuel stations piping and associated leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), the upgradient/sidegradient (Parcel 15B) which shows elevated PCE levels likely from the former laundry, the possible contaminated fill from incinerator ash used throughout the property and the presence of an unknown tar-like substance on Parcel 15. The site investigations are summarized below: In June 1998 a soil and ground water investigation was conducted on Parcel 16 only which is located directly to the south of the subject site (Parcel 15A). According to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Subsurface investigations (Lowney, 2000) groundwater was encountered at approximately 5 feet in the southeast corner of the lot. Laboratory analysis detected 120,000 ppb of TEPH [Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons] in the off-site sample from the southeast corner of Parcel 16B and up to 100 ppb of PCE and 4.2 ppb of TCE in two borings along the northern boundary of Parcel 16A. As stated in the report the presumed source for the PCE and TCE was Parcel 15B. This was likely from the former laundry located on this property. In June 1999 a Residual Volatile Organic Compounds Investigation was conducted on Parcel 15 and 15A. A 16-point, passive soil gas survey was performed to characterize the distribution of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on the site. According to the Lowney ESA (Lowney, 2000) “up to 0.29 ppm of PCE (at six locations) and 1.53 ppm of chloroform (at three locations) were detected in the soil gas samples. One deep boring (approximately 96.5 feet) was drilled off-site of Parcel 15 near Dublin Boulevard. Ground water was encountered at 18 feet in the boring. Laboratory analysis of the ground water from the deep boring detected 3.5 ppb of PCE. Three shallow (approximately 24- to 30-foot) borings also were drilled on Parcel 15. The borings were converted to temporary monitoring wells and sampled for VOCs. Laboratory analyses of the ground water samples detected 50 ppb to 180 ppb of PCE in two borings located near the south side of the off-site former laundry and boiler room on Parcel 15B.” In March 2000 a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Subsurface Investigation (Lowney 2000) was conducted for Parcel 15. The Lowney ESA report concluded that “shallow ground water beneath the southern portion of Parcel 15 was impacted by PCE at concentrations up to 440 ppb. The highest concentration in the ground water samples was located near the former laundry/boiler room on Parcel 15. One soil boring on the southern portion of Parcel 15B, just north of Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 3 of 8 the laundry/boiler room building, contained 5,600 ppm of TEPH.” Also noted in the report was elevated chemicals of concern from the fill material which warranted the recommendation of a soil management plan to prevent worker exposure. Also noted was a tar-like substance in the former northern service station area which was estimated to be approximately ½ inch thick (Lowney 2000). In May 2000 two underground storage tanks (one 10,000-gallon and one 1,000-gallon) were removed from the eastern (off-site) portion of Parcel 15 as reported in the Lowney report (Lowney 2000). Based on the site maps in the Lowney 2000 ESA it appears that the USTs were located on the west side of the property, not the east side. In November 2000 sampling was documented in the Lowney ESA report titled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation. The report details the following sampling and assessment data: • Soil Vapor Sampling: ten soil vapor probes were pushed to a depth of approximately 5 feet at each service station on Parcel 15A. Passive soil vapor samples were collected which indicated organic volatile compounds in three areas. • Soil Sampling: fifteen near-surface (surface to 1/2-foot depth) soil samples were collected from locations selected at former structures and open field areas on Parcels 15A, 16A, and F. Seven were located on Parcel 15A. • Test Pit Sampling: eighty-one samples from selected test pits on each of the three parcels were sampled and analyzed for arsenic, lead, purgeable and extractable fuel hydrocarbons and asbestos. Twenty-four samples were analyzed for CAM 17 metals. Additional testing including PCB’s and dioxins. The average sample depth was 3.1 feet and the median depth was 2.5 ft. • Groundwater Sampling: groundwater was reported at depths ranging from 15 to 18 feet bgs. According to the Lowney ESA (Lowney 2000) “groundwater impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons was encountered at the two former service stations on Parcel 15A. Up to 15,000 ppb of TPHg and 3,300 ppb of TPHd were detected in the area of the former Building 468B service station on Parcel 15A. Up to 290 ppb of TPHd was detected in the area of the former Building 468A service station on Parcel 15A.” Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) was detected up to 39 ppb on Parcel 15A and PCE was detected up to 24 ppb on Parcel 15A, 440 ppb on Parcel 15B to the east and 120 ppb off-site just to the south of Parcel 15. Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 4 of 8 The Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Zeiss IS/MND, 2018) has not undergone a complete and thorough review because its findings are based on inadequate, incomplete and antiquated data used in the 2001 Cisco Initial Study (Cisco, 2001). The Supplemental IS/MND (Zeiss IS/MND, 2018) for the Zeiss project states “Because the Cisco Systems IS/MND was prepared in 2001, updates to biological resources, cultural (historic) resources and transportation/traffic are included in this IS/Supplemental MND to confirm previous findings. It was concluded that biological resources are the only environmental issue where a potential new significant impact could occur.” Based on this City staff has chosen to rely on the IS/MND prepared for a different project (Cisco) in 2001; 17 years ago. While the proposed use may be similar subsurface, geochemical data can change considerably over the course of 18 to 20 years and this could be a substantial change from what was known in 1998-2000. The only mitigation measure proposed to deal with the existing environmental concerns is Mitigation Measure 3 which requires all asbestos wrapped piping be removed and heavy petroleum hydrocarbons be removed to “the extent required by the appropriate regulatory agencies” (Zeiss, 2018 IS/MND). Furthermore, the original IS/MND for the Cisco project relied on an incomplete data set and had that project moved forward these insufficiencies may have surfaced. A review of this data is bringing to light, possibly for the first time, that important subsurface data is missing from the investigation. The original IS/MND for the Cisco (Cisco, 2001) project used data presented in the March 2000 Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Subsurface investigations (Lowney, 2000) which is missing important subsurface data and analysis. It is possible this report and data was not thoroughly analyzed at the time because Cisco withdrew their application. The Lowney ESA and therefore the Cisco Initial Study are inadequate and/or incomplete for the following reasons: 1) The soil samples were collected from depths too shallow to be useful. The two leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) removed from the property were 10,000 gallon and 1,000 gallon in capacity. A typical 10,000 gallon UST has a diameter of 8 feet and a typical 1,000 gallon UST has a diameter of 5 feet. These tanks are buried at least two feet below grade putting the bottom of the 10,000 gallon LUST at a minimum of 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) and the 1,000 gallon LUST at a minimum of 7 feet bgs. The soil samples were collected from depths no greater than 6-inches and the test pit samples were collected from depths averaging 3.1 feet bgs or a median depth of 2.5 feet bgs. Since contents in the LUSTs and their piping are subject to gravitational forces in the subsurface these samples should have been collected from locations below the bottom and laterally outward of the excavations; not above. Only seven soil borings were advanced at the site and this quantity in insufficient to determine impacts from any piping or UST leaks. Soil samples collected from depths above 7 ft bgs for the 1,000 gallon LUST and 10 feet bgs for the 10,000 gallon LUST tell us nothing about what may be in the soil column from the LUST release area to the saturated zone. Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 5 of 8 2) The results of the groundwater samples are not discussed in the Lowney report (Lowney 2000). The Lowney report documents that groundwater samples were collected on Parcel 15 but the results are not discussed in the Conclusion section of the report. The data collected and documented on Figure 10 of the Lowney ESA indicated TPHg (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline) up to 15,000 ppb and TPHd (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel) up to 3,300 ppb. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) was found up to 39 ppb; it is not clear from the report if this is a cumulative result of BTEX chemicals or the if this is the highest individual compound of the BTEX results. Concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) were detected in groundwater samples on Parcel 15 up to 120 ppb. The Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) published by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB-RWQCB) have an ESL for TPHg and TPHd of 100 ug/l (ppb) whereas the concentrations on-site were found at 15,000 ppb for TPHg and 3,300 for TPHd. The on-site PCE concentrations were found up to 120 ppb and the ESL of PCE is 3 ppb and the ESL for benzene is 1 ppb, toluene is 40 ppb, ethylbenzene is 13 ppb and xylenes is 20 ppb. The concentration found on-site was 39 ppb which if the BTEX result was for any of the analytes with the exception of toluene that too would be an exceedance. The current level of groundwater depth or groundwater contaminant levels are unknown and therefore the risks from them are also not known. 3) The data relied on in the Zeiss IS/MND (Zeiss IS/ MND, 2017) in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section is no longer appropriate for use. The latest data collected for this site is 18-20 years old. The site subsurface in the area of the water table is dynamic and contaminant concentrations in the vadose and saturated zones change with the groundwater table fluctuation and also with the direction of groundwater flow. The groundwater flow direction is towards the southwest as documented in the Lowney report (Lowney, 2000). Contaminant concentrations that were detected above the ESL from the north portion of the site likely migrated southwest and therefore could be found in other portions of the site not previously investigated. Furthermore, samples were not collected from the upgradient portion of the site or upgradient areas on the adjacent northeast site and therefore if elevated contaminant concentrations did exist in these areas they may have migrated onto the subject site within the past 20 years and without current data the risks to the public and workers cannot be ascertained. 4) Relying on environmental assessment data from the year 2000 (Lowney 2000) leaves out the potential for impacts from surrounding use since that time. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed by Lowney and others from 1998 to 2000 looked at the potential impacts from surrounding uses and contaminated sites at that time. A significant contribution to the groundwater now located on the subject property could have occurred within this time. As stated in the Lowney 2000 ESA: “Several facilities in the vicinity, however, were reported as hazardous materials users; if leaks or spills occur at these facilities, contamination could impact the site, depending upon the Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 6 of 8 effectives of cleanup efforts.” According to the RWQCB Geotracker (Geotracker, 2018) database regarding a site that is located upgradient of the subject site in “March 2013, a failure occurred with a pump seal and diesel underground tank's day tank, which caused the contents of the day tank to release onto the concrete pad and spread downhill approximately 80 feet. Ten drums of diesel impacted absorbent and soil was generated; however, no documentation exists to demonstrate that the release has been sufficiently abated.” This instance, updated in 2016, is just one of many environmental occurrences that could have happened in the area of the site that may have an impact. Without an investigation into the current status of environmental impacts on the property the environmental risk cannot be thoroughly reviewed. The Carl Zeiss IS/MND does not adequately protect workers or the public from potential impacts from contaminated soil and soil vapor. Based on the fact that soil samples were not collected from appropriate depths as mentioned above contaminant concentrations in the subsurface soils beneath 2-3 feet bgs and 5 feet for soil vapors are not known. Since it is possible that exposures to soil beneath these depths is likely from the construction work additional investigation as to the risks to workers and the public should be determined. In addition, the Lowney ESA (Lowney, 2000) recommended a soil management plan for handling significantly impacted soil if encountered during grading activities and this is not included nor mentioned in any of the Carl Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND mitigation measures. The level of environmental risk from this site should be assessed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) not in an MND/IS. The environmental history of this site, including the unknown impacts from the uninvestigated site soils, combined with the existing elevated concentrations of contaminants above the ESLs in the groundwater can potentially create a significant environmental health threat to worker safety, the public and future employees at the project site. Furthermore, data for which for the project MND/IS declaration was based, is not current and is incomplete in its evaluation of subsurface contaminants. The determination for an MND should be that no (mitigated) environmental risk exists, however as shown above, the record shows 1) a clear lack of soil data, 2) a potential source for contaminated groundwater, 3) known contaminants from fill without any plan for soil management and 4) the unknown impacts from environmental conditions which may have occurred in the past 18-20 years. For these reasons the impacts to the environment and the public have the potential to be significant and therefore an MND/IS is not appropriate for this project. A full EIR is recommended to adequately and thoroughly review the risks from this project. Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 7 of 8 CONCLUSION The MND/IS fails to adequately evaluate the risks from this project on worker safety, the public, and future occupants. There is substantial evidence in the record that environmental hazards still remain in the subsurface that can have a significant impact on the environment and community. Evidence presented in the project file indicates that existing potential hazards from subsurface impacts were not properly investigated and the risks from these remain unknown. The one mitigation proposed in the MND/IS to remove the known soil contamination but because there is a substantial area that has not be adequately assessed the mitigations do not reduce the risks to below significant. A Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for a project when there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects could result in significant adverse impacts or that mitigations proposed can reduce those impacts to below significant. Since sufficient evidence exists, as outlined above, showing that this project could result in significant environmental impacts and the mitigations proposed are inadequate in addressing these impacts, the use of an MND/IS is not appropriate for this project and a full EIR is warranted. In addition, because the site geochemical data, fluctuating with the site hydrogeology and contaminant flow, could have changed significantly from the initial Cisco IS/MND a new study with current data for this site is warranted in order to afford the public and the decision-makers a complete and thorough review of this project. Sincerely, Heidi Bauer, PG 7050 Senior Project Hydrogeologist References City of Dublin, December 8, 2017, Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study for the Zeiss Innovation Center, Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00025 City of Dublin, June 2001, Initial Study, Cisco Systems, PA 00-029 Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 8 of 8 RWQCB Geotracker website, 2018, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000005213 Lowney Associates, November 2000, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation, Cisco Systems Site 9 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Feb. 2016, Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/ESL/ESL%20Workbook_ESLs _Interim%20Final_22Feb16_Rev3_PDF.pdf PROFILE Professional Geologist (CA) and QSP for stormwater. Effective manager and communicator for environmental investigations and reports. Effective and efficient professional for CEQA/NEPA project reviews and third-party peer reviews. Effective leader for hazmat clean-ups, indoor air quality investigations and employee health and safety programs and oversight. EXPERIENCE Senior Project Geologist January 2004 – present Air & Water Sciences, Petaluma, California Currently manages environmental projects, environment project oversight, and third-party review. Includes review, analysis, interpretation and comment/advise on groundwater and soil contaminated sites. Performs file reviews for contaminated sites and prepares summary reports. Researches and comments on environmental impacts from subsurface contamination in- cluding groundwater, soil and soil vapor, including review of subsurface contaminant transport, groundwater flow, soil stra- tigraphy and hydrogeologic data to determine risk and remediation goals. Provides review, opinion and comments for CEQA/NEPA projects and other projects reviewing environmental review. Project management includes report and plan preparation, proposal development, estimating, data collection, analysis interpretation, and reporting. Coordinates and in- teracts with regulatory agencies on compliance issues. Reviews and provides updates/presentations on regulatory/ compliance standards and requirements. Performs peer reviews and environmental damage claim assessments for insur- ance carriers. Also performs indoor air quality investigations and reporting, including, mold, VOCs, particulates, asbestos and lead. Serves as collateral health and safety officer and prepares health and safety-related plans. Senior Project Geologist June 2002 to January 2004 Miller Brooks Environmental, Oakland, California Managed the implementation and direction of environmental investigations and LUST programs for multi-site, small to large, petroleum distribution and marketing companies. Worked and met with regulators and prepared local, state and federally required reports and documents. Managed compliance testing and discharge reporting requirements. Performed peer re- views, property development investigations, and damage claim evaluations for insurance companies. Performed function as company Health and Safety Officer and prepared health and safety plans and risk assessment reports for projects. Senior Project Geologist September 1997 to August 2001 Clearwater Group, Inc., Oakland, California Supervised 10 – 15 managers, scientists, and technicians and served as operations manager of satellite office. Directed program implementation for multi-site clients with LUST sites. Collected and analyzed data and prepared and implemented plans and permits including, but not limited to, workplans, proposals, sampling plans, RAPs and CAPs, RNA plans, feasibil- ity studies, pilot tests, health and safety plans, NPDES and air quality permits. Conducted environmental research, support and reporting for environmental litigation cases, damage claim evaluations and property development. Served as represen- tative for environmental and property development issues at hearings and meetings. Served as Corporate Health & Safety Officer and managed safety compliance issues, reporting and conducted appropriate training. Project Geologist January 1996 – July 1997 Walden Associates Inc., Oyster Bay, New York Responsible for environmental investigative work to assess the nature and extent of contaminant releases from LUST sites or hazardous material releases. Conducted and coordinated assessments and remedial projects. Prepared workplans, corrective action plans, reports and permitting documents. Served as Corporate Health and Safety Officer and conducted all trainings, reporting and compliance management. Environmental Coordinator January 1993 to January 1996 Department of Environmental Health & Safety, State of New York, Stony Brook, New York Responsible for compliance with all applicable federal, state and local hazardous waste regulations and storm water and NPDES discharge reporting. Worked with facilities maintenance on facility inspections, storage, transportation oversight and 625 2nd Street, Suite 110 Petaluma, CA 94952 707-769-2289 heidi@awsciences.com www.awsciences.com HEIDI M. BAUER, PG disposal/discharge of hazardous and regulated waste. Collateral duties included confined space safety, industrial hygiene sampling, indoor air quality investigation, hazard communication program, chemical hygiene program implementation and compliance inspections. ADDITIONAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT Lieutenant/Chemical Safety Division Officer June 1996 to June 2002 US Coast Guard Reserve, Pacific Strike Team, Novato, California and Fort Wadsworth, NY Directly supervised 15 response technicians and scientists. Directed hazardous materials response operations in area of responsibility. Worked on environmental investigations for EPA Superfund sites and oversaw direct-push (Geoprobe) work. Conducted unit training on safety and monitoring and Geoprobe. Served as Chemical Division Safety Officer. Environmental Management Assistant August 1993 to December 1993 Marine Science Research Center, Stony Brook, New York Conducted groundwater sampling, data collection and interpretation for municipal solid waste landfill sites. Conducted re- search project on the environmental and public health effects of improper lead waste disposal. Conducted research project on the disposal routes and environmental consequences of medical waste disposal on local beaches. Environmental Intern June 1993 to August 1993 Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Syracuse, New York Conducted research project and report on waste discharges (TRIs) from steel mills to the Great Lakes basin in accordance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). Environmental Health & Safety Intern January 1992 to December 1993 Department of Environmental Health & Safety, State of New York, Stony Brook, New York Worked under Environmental Health and Safety Manager and Industrial Hygiene Manager and performed environmental surveys and inspections. Responded to and remediated chemical spills. Assisted with Hazcom/Community Right-to-Know program. Environmental Intern January 1990 to December 1992 New York Public Interest Research Group Performed research, outreach and public education on waste-to-energy plants. Also performed research and public educa- tion in support of the 5-cent bottle return program for Suffolk County. ACADEMIC BACKGROUND •Bachelor of Science – Major in Environmental Geology (Minor in Marine Science), State University of New York at Stony Brook – December 1993 •Master of Professional Studies– Environmental/Waste Management – State University of New York at Stony Brook – May 1997 REGISTRATIONS, CERTIFICATES, & PUBLICATIONS Current State of California Professional Geologist (PG) #7050 USCG DOT Pollution Investigation Qualification Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Practitioner (QSP) Lead Sampling Technician Asbestos Building Inspector and Site Supervisor/Contractor USCG DOT Hazardous Materials Response Qual. Confined Space Entry & Rescue – I and II 40-hour Hazwoper training and instructor Hazardous Materials Response – Operations level Indoor Air Quality Investigation Hazardous Materials Response – Technician level Hazardous Materials Response – Supervisor level Page 2 EXHIBIT E Screening Criteria Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-1 CEQA Guidelines June 2010 3. SCREENING CRITERIA The screening criteria identified in this section are not thresholds of significance. The Air District developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions. These screening levels are generally representative of new development on greenfield sites without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration. In addition, the screening criteria in this section do not account for project design features, attributes, or local development requirements that could also result in lower emissions. For projects that are mixed- use, infill, and/or proximate to transit service and local services, emissions would be less than the greenfield type project that these screening criteria are based on. If a project includes emissions from stationary source engines (e.g., back-up generators) and industrial sources subject to Air District Rules and Regulations, the screening criteria should not be used. The project’s stationary source emissions should be analyzed separately from the land use-related indirect mobile- and area-source emissions. Stationary-source emissions are not included in the screening estimates given below and, for criteria pollutants, must be added to the indirect mobile- and area-source emissions generated by the land use development and compared to the appropriate Thresholds of Significance. Greenhouse gas emissions from permitted stationary sources should not be combined with operational emissions, but compared to a separate stationary source greenhouse gas threshold. 3.1. OPERATIONAL-RELATED IMPACTS 3.1.1. Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors The screening criteria developed for criteria pollutants and precursors were derived using the default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model (URBEMIS). If the project has sources of emissions not evaluated in the URBEMIS program the screening criteria should not be used. If the project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, the project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-2. Operation of the proposed project would therefore result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to air quality from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. 3.1.2. Greenhouse Gases The screening criteria developed for greenhouse gases were derived using the default emission assumptions in URBEMIS and using off-model GHG estimates for indirect emissions from electrical generation, solid waste and water conveyance. If the project has other significant sources of GHG emissions not accounted for in the methodology described above, then the screening criteria should not be used. Projects below the applicable screening criteria shown in Table 3-1 would not exceed the 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr GHG threshold of significance for projects other than permitted stationary sources. If a project, including stationary sources, is located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the project may be considered less than significant if it is consistent with the GHG Reduction Strategy. A project must demonstrate its consistency by identifying and implementing all applicable feasible measures and policies from the GHG Reduction Strategy into the project. Screening Criteria Page | 3-2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Table 3-1 Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes Land Use Type Operational Criteria Pollutant Screening Size Operational GHG Screening Size Construction-Related Screening Size Single-family 325 du (NOX) 56 du 114 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise 451 du (ROG) 78 du 240 du (ROG) Apartment, mid-rise 494 du (ROG) 87 du 240 du (ROG) Apartment, high-rise 510 du (ROG) 91 du 249 du (ROG) Condo/townhouse, general 451 du (ROG) 78 du 240 du (ROG) Condo/townhouse, high-rise 511 du (ROG) 92 du 252 du (ROG) Mobile home park 450 du (ROG) 82 du 114 du (ROG) Retirement community 487 du (ROG) 94 du 114 du (ROG) Congregate care facility 657 du (ROG) 143 du 240 du (ROG) Day-care center 53 ksf (NOX) 11 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Elementary school 271 ksf (NOX) 44 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Elementary school 2747 students (ROG) - 3904 students (ROG) Junior high school 285 ksf (NOX) - 277 ksf (ROG) Junior high school 2460 students (NOX) 46 ksf 3261 students (ROG) High school 311 ksf (NOX) 49 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) High school 2390 students (NOX) - 3012 students (ROG) Junior college (2 years) 152 ksf (NOX) 28 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Junior college (2 years) 2865 students (ROG) - 3012 students (ROG) University/college (4 years) 1760 students (NOX) 320 students 3012 students (ROG) Library 78 ksf (NOX) 15 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Place of worship 439 ksf (NOX) 61 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) City park 2613 acres (ROG) 600 acres 67 acres (PM10) Racquet club 291 ksf (NOX) 46 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Racquetball/health 128 ksf (NOX) 24 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Quality restaurant 47 ksf (NOX) 9 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) High turnover restaurant 33 ksf (NOX) 7 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Fast food rest. w/ drive thru 6 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Fast food rest. w/o drive thru 8 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Hotel 489 rooms (NOX) 83 rooms 554 rooms (ROG) Motel 688 rooms (NOX) 106 rooms 554 rooms (ROG) Free-standing discount store 76 ksf (NOX) 15 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Free-standing discount superstore 87 ksf (NOX) 17 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Discount club 102 ksf (NOX) 20 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Regional shopping center 99 ksf (NOX) 19 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Electronic Superstore 95 ksf (NOX) 18 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Home improvement superstore 142 ksf (NOX) 26 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Strip mall 99 ksf (NOX) 19 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Hardware/paint store 83 ksf (NOX) 16 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Supermarket 42 ksf (NOX) 8 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Convenience market (24 hour) 5 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Convenience market with gas pumps 4 ksf (NOX) 1 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Bank (with drive-through) 17 ksf (NOX) 3 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) General office building 346 ksf (NOX) 53 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Screening Criteria Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-3 CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Table 3-1 Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes Land Use Type Operational Criteria Pollutant Screening Size Operational GHG Screening Size Construction-Related Screening Size Office park 323 ksf (NOX) 50 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Government office building 61 ksf (NOX) 12 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Government (civic center) 149 ksf (NOX) 27 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Pharmacy/drugstore w/ drive through 49 ksf (NOX) 10 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Pharmacy/drugstore w/o drive through 48 ksf (NOX) 10 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Medical office building 117 ksf (NOX) 22 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Hospital 226 ksf (NOX) 39 ksf 277 ksf (ROG) Hospital 334 beds (NOX) 84 ksf 337 beds (ROG) Warehouse 864 ksf (NOX) 64 ksf 259 ksf (NOX) General light industry 541 ksf (NOX) 121 ksf 259 ksf (NOX) General light industry 72 acres (NOX) - 11 acres (NOX) General light industry 1249 employees (NOX) - 540 employees (NOX) General heavy industry 1899 ksf (ROG) - 259 ksf (NOX) General heavy industry 281 acres (ROG) - 11 acres (NOX) Industrial park 553 ksf (NOX) 65 ksf 259 ksf (NOX) Industrial park 61 acres (NOX) - 11 acres (NOX) Industrial park 1154 employees (NOX) - 577 employees (NOX) Manufacturing 992 ksf (NOX) 89 ksf 259 ksf (NOX) Notes: du = dwelling units; ksf = thousand square feet; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. Screening levels include indirect and area source emissions. Emissions from engines (e.g., back-up generators) and industrial sources subject to Air District Rules and Regulations embedded in the land uses are not included in the screening estimates and must be added to the above land uses. Refer to Appendix D for support documentation. Source: Modeled by EDAW 2009. 3.2. COMMUNITY RISK AND HAZARD IMPACTS Please refer to Chapter 5 for discussion of screening criteria for local community risk and hazard impacts. 3.3. CARBON MONOXIDE IMPACTS This preliminary screening methodology provides the Lead Agency with a conservative indication of whether the implementation of the proposed project would result in CO emissions that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-3. The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria is met: 1. Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. Screening Criteria Page | 3-4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines June 2010 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). 3.4. ODOR IMPACTS Table 3-3 presents odor screening distances recommended by BAAQMD for a variety of land uses. Projects that would site a new odor source or a new receptor farther than the applicable screening distance shown in Table 3-3 from an existing receptor or odor source, respectively, would not likely result in a significant odor impact. The odor screening distances in Table 3-3 should not be used as absolute screening criteria, rather as information to consider along with the odor parameters and complaint history. Refer to Chapter 7 Assessing and Mitigating Odor Impacts for comprehensive guidance on significance determination. Table 3-3 Odor Screening Distances Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile Sanitary Landfill 2 miles Transfer Station 1 mile Composting Facility 1 mile Petroleum Refinery 2 miles Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile Rendering Plant 2 miles Coffee Roaster 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile Metal Smelting Plants 2 miles Refer to Appendix D for support documentation. Facilities that are regulated by CalRecycle (e.g. landfill, composting, etc.) are required to have Odor Impact Minimization Plans (OIMP) in place and have procedures that establish fence line odor detection thresholds. The Air District recognizes a Lead Agency’s discretion under CEQA to use established odor detection thresholds as thresholds of significance for CEQA review for CalRecycle regulated facilities with an adopted OIMP. Screening Criteria Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-5 CEQA Guidelines June 2010 3.5. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS 3.5.1. Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors This preliminary screening provides the Lead Agency with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project would result in the generation of construction-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance shown in Table 2-4. If all of the following Screening Criteria are met, the construction of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact from criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. 1. The project is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1; and 2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction; and 3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following: a. Demolition; b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously); c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development); d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity. 3.5.2. Community Risk and Hazards Chapter 5, Assessing and Mitigating Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts, contains information on screening criteria for local risk and hazards. Screening Criteria Page | 3-6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines June 2010 [This Page Intentionally Left Blank]