Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.2 SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters October 30, 2018 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the Community Development Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the Planning Commission be available to the public. The attached documents were received in the Community Development Department’s Office after distribution of the October 30, 2018, Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. Item 5.1 5.2 Packet Pg. 1104 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1105 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1106 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Ms. Million, City of Dublin August 20, 2018 Page3 compliance withCEQA, PRC 5024.S, andthe SBR, all constructionwithln60feet of the find shall cease ap.d the Caltrans District 4 Office ofCµltural Resource Studies (OCRS) shallbe immecliatelycontactedat (510) 622-1673. Encroachment Peniiit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state right-of .. way requires an ,encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply; a completed encroachment pen11it application, environmental documentation, and six (6) sets of plans clearlyindkating state right�of�way must be. submitted to: Office of Permits, California DOT, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Tmffic--related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment pennit process. See the website. lhlk: below for moreinformation: http://www.dot..ca.gov/hq/traffops/deve1opserv/petmits/. Lead.Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of Dublin.is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements tothe STN. The project's fair.share coi1tribution, financing, scheduling, implementation resporisibilities and Lead Agency monitoring shoµld be :folly discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Furthermore, this project meets the criteria to be deemed of statewide, regional, or areawid� significance per CEQA Guidelines § 15206. The DEIR should be submitted to MTC, the Association .of Bay Area Govermnents and the Alameda County Transportation Commission for review and comment. Thank you again for including Cal trans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regardingthis letter, please contact Jannette Ramirez at (510) 286'-5535 or jannette.ramirez@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, �f"PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local .qeveloprnent � Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Proi>ide a safe, s11sl(Ji11able,. /11/e:graled (md efficie111 · 1rauspoi·/atio11 sys1em to eirlu/1/ce Califomia 's econo,ny and livability" 5.2 Packet Pg. 1107 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1108 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1109 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1110 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1111 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1112 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1113 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1114 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1115 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1116 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1117 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1118 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1119Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1120Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1121Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1122Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1123Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1124Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1125Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1126Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1127Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1128Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1129Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1130Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1131Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1132Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1133Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1134Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1135Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1136Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1137Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1138Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1139Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1140Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1141Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1142Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1143Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1144Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1145Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1146Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1147Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1148Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1149Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1150Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1151Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1152Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1153Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1154Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1155Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1156Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1157Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1158Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2Packet Pg. 1159Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) EXHIBIT A 5.2 Packet Pg. 1160 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 1    2656 29th Street, Suite 201  Santa Monica, CA 90405    Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.    (949) 887‐9013   mhagemann@swape.com  August 15, 2018    Nirit Lotan    Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo  601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000  South San Francisco, CA 94080    Subject: Comments on the At Dublin Project  Dear Ms. Lotan,    We have reviewed the July 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the Eastern Specific Plan  (updated September 2016), and the October 3, 2017 Staff Report for the At Dublin Project (“Project”)  located in the City of Dublin (“City”). The Project proposes to construct up to 454,000 square feet of  commercial space and 680 residential units across six different planning areas (PA) (PA‐1, PA‐2a, PA‐2b,  PA‐2c, PA‐3, and PA‐4) of the 79.7‐acre project site over three phases of construction (Phase 1, Phase  2a, and Phase 2b). The 680 residential units will include 300 apartment units, 200 townhouses, and 180  single‐family homes that will be constructed across PA‐2b, PA‐2c, PA‐3, and PA‐4. The 454,000 square  feet of commercial uses would include one to two hotels with 240 guest rooms, 215,000 square feet of  retail space, and 3,000 square feet of community space across PA‐1 and PA‐2b. PA‐2a will also be  constructed with a theater, specialty restaurants, and general retail uses, however the DEIR fails to  specify the these land use sizes.   Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s Air Quality and  Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts. As a result, emissions and health impacts associated with construction  and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated  Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the  potential air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts the Project may have on the surrounding  environment.  5.2 Packet Pg. 1161 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 2    Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version  CalEEMod.2016.3.2 ("CalEEMod").1 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 the California Environmental Quality  Act (CEQA) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.2 Once all of the values are  inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and  "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in  calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions, and make known which default values were changed as  well as provide a justification for the values selected.3    When we reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files, found in Appendix B, we found that several of  the values inputted into the model were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a  result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are greatly underestimated. An updated  DEIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the  impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.  Failure to Include All Land Uses Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that not all of the land uses proposed by  the DEIR were included in the Project’s CalEEMod model. As a result, the Project’s construction and  operational emissions are underestimated.  According to the DEIR, the proposed Project will construct “a mixed‐use development that would allow  up to 454,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 680 residential units” (p. 3‐3). The DEIR goes  onto say, “PA‐1 would include one or two hotels with up to 240 rooms (maximum 74 feet in height),  approximately 215,000 square feet of retail uses, and approximately 3,000 square feet of community  uses for a total of up to 370,000 square feet of commercial uses” (p. 3‐6). In regard to PA‐2, the DEIR  states, “PA‐2a would contain commercial uses including a theater, specialty restaurants, and general  retail uses. PA‐2b would contain a five and a half‐story, approximately 362,772 square‐foot (272,000 net  rentable square feet) apartment building with up to 300 residential units surrounding a parking garage”  (p. 3‐6). Furthermore, PA‐2c would consist of 200 townhomes and PA‐3 and PA‐4 would consist of 180  single‐family homes (p. 3‐6). Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files, however, demonstrates that  all commercial uses were modeled as a hotel or strip mall. The Project Applicant failed to model the                                                               1 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 Website Archive, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download‐model‐ 2013  2 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, pp. 2, 9, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6  3 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, pp. 7, 13, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (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.)  5.2 Packet Pg. 1162 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3    theater or specialty restaurants that will be constructed on PA‐2a (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp.  1, pp. 88, pp. 168).    As you can see above, the Project Applicant failed to include the movie theater and the specialty  restaurants as individual land uses and modeled these land uses as part of the strip mall instead. As  previously mentioned, the land use type and size features are used throughout CalEEMod to determine  default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations.4 For example, the square  footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted  (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy  impacts). Similarly, the acreage is used to determine the amount of ground to be prepared, graded,  paved, etc.5 Furthermore, CalEEMod assigns each land use type with its own set of energy usage  emission factors.6 By failing to model the theater and specialty restaurants that the DEIR states will be  constructed during PA‐2a, the emissions that would be produced during construction and operation of  these land uses are unaccounted for, and as a result, the Project’s emissions are greatly underestimated.  Incorrectly Applied Mitigation Measure to Construction Emissions The Project Applicant recommends mitigation measures in order to reduce construction emissions.  According to Mitigation Measure AQ‐2.2 (MM AQ‐2.2),    “Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to   the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment   greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off‐  road emissions standards” (p. 6‐33).                                                               4 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user‐39‐s‐guide2016‐3‐1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 17  5 CalEEMod User’s Tips, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/Model/2013.2.2/caleemod‐usertips‐april2014.pdf?sfvrsn=0, p. 27, p. 11  6 CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix‐d2016‐3‐1.pdf?sfvrsn=2  5.2 Packet Pg. 1163 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 4    Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that this mitigation measures was incorrectly applied  for two reasons: (1) the model assumed that Tier 4 Final engines would be used; and (2) construction  equipment with less than 50 horsepower was assumed to be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines.  First, the excerpt below demonstrates that emissions were modeled assuming that all 144 pieces of off‐ road construction equipment would be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines (see excerpt below)  (Appendix B, pp. 3‐4, pp. 90‐91, pp. 170‐171).      The Project Applicant assumes that all of the equipment used during the construction of the Project  would be mitigated with Tier 4 Final equipment. This specification as to what type of Tier 4 equipment  will be used (i.e., Tier 4 Interim engines or Tier 4 Final engines), however, is not clearly stated in MM AQ‐ 2.2.   5.2 Packet Pg. 1164 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has slowly adopted more stringent  standards to lower the emissions from off‐road construction equipment since 1994. Since that time, Tier  1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 4 Final construction equipment has been phased in over time.  Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest burning equipment and therefore has the lowest emissions  compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment (see excerpt below):7    As demonstrated in the figure above, Tier 4 Final equipment has lower emissions than Tier 4 Interim  equipment. Therefore, since MM AQ‐2.2 fails to specify whether or not the Project will use Tier 4  Interim or Tier 4 Final equipment, it is incorrect to model emissions assuming that Tier 4 Final  equipment will be used for all 144 pieces of construction equipment. Until the Project Applicant  specifies that the Project will actually use Tier 4 Final equipment for all pieces of equipment over 50  horsepower, the Project’s potential impacts should not be evaluated assuming the use of this cleaner  burning equipment.  Second, as shown above, the CalEEMod output files demonstrate that 144 pieces of construction  equipment will be mitigated. However, MM AQ‐2.2 only applies to construction equipment greater than  50 horsepower (p. 6‐33). Review of the “Offroad Equipment” table in the CalEEMod output file  demonstrates that of the 144 pieces of construction equipment, three welders will only have 46  horsepower engines (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 10‐11, pp. 96‐97, pp. 175‐176).                                                               7 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August  2015, available at:  https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction_Ordinance_2015.pdf, p.  6  5.2 Packet Pg. 1165 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 6          Since these three welders are less than 50 horsepower, MM AQ‐2.2 does not apply to these pieces of  equipment. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to model emissions assuming that any of the welders  5.2 Packet Pg. 1166 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 7    would be equipped with any Tier 4 equipment. As a result, construction emissions are underestimated  and the CalEEMod model provided within the DEIR should not be used to determine Project significance.  Failure to Assess Feasibility of Obtaining Tier 4 Final Equipment Regardless of the fact that the Project Developer incorrectly modeled the Project’s emissions assuming  use of Tier 4 Final engines, the DEIR fails to assess the feasibility of obtaining 144 pieces of Tier 4 Final  equipment for Project construction (Appendix B, pp. 4, pp. 91, pp. 171). Due to the limited number of  Tier 4 Final construction equipment available, the Project Developer should have assessed the feasibility  in obtaining engines equipped with Tier 4 Final engines for construction equipment. By failing to  demonstrate how the Project will actually comply with this mitigation measure, this measure is  unenforceable and thus, the Project Developer cannot claim the emissions reductions from this  measure.  The U.S. EPA’s 1998 nonroad engine emission standards were structured as a three‐tiered progression.   Tier 1 standards were phased‐in from 1996 to 2000 and Tier 2 emission standards were phased in from  2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards, which applied to engines from 37‐560 kilowatts (kW) only, were phased  in from 2006 to 2008.  The Tier 4 emission standards were introduced in 2004 and were phased in from  2008 to 2015. 8 These tiered emission standards, however, are only applicable to newly manufactured  nonroad equipment.  According to the U.S. EPA, “if products were built before EPA emission standards  started to apply, they are generally not affected by the standards or other regulatory requirements.”9   Therefore, pieces of equipment manufactured prior to 2000 are not required to adhere to Tier 2  emission standards, and pieces of equipment manufactured prior to 2006 are not required to adhere to  Tier 3 emission standards.  Construction equipment often lasts more than 30 years; as a result, Tier 1  equipment and non‐certified equipment are currently still in use.10 It is estimated that of the two million  diesel engines currently used in construction, 31 percent were manufactured before the introduction of  emissions regulations.11  Although Tier 4 engines are currently being produced and installed in new off‐road construction  equipment, the vast majority of existing diesel off‐road construction equipment in California is not  equipped with Tier 4 engines.12 In a 2010 white paper, the California Industry Air Quality Coalition  estimated that approximately 7% and less than 1% of all off‐road heavy duty diesel equipment in                                                               8 Emission Standards, Nonroad Diesel Engines, available at:  https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php#tier3   9 “Frequently Asked Questions from Owners and Operators of Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and Equipment Certified  to EPA Standards.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 2012. Available at:  http://www.epa.gov/oms/highway‐diesel/regs/420f12053.pdf   10 “Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction.” Northeast Diesel Collaborative, August 2012. Available at:  http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf   11 Northeast Diesel Collaborative Clean Construction Workgroup, available at:  http://northeastdiesel.org/construction.html   12 California Industry Air Quality Coalition White Paper, p. 3, available at: http://www.agc‐ ca.org/uploadedFiles/Member_Services/Regulatory‐Advocacy‐Page‐PDFs/White_Paper_CARB_OffRoad.pdf  5.2 Packet Pg. 1167 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8    California was equipped with Tier 2 and Tier 3 engines, respectively.13 Similarly, based on information  and data provided in the San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San  Francisco Public Projects, the availability of Tier 3 equipment is extremely limited. In 2014, 25% of all off‐ road equipment in the state of California were equipped with Tier 2 engines, approximately 12% were  equipped with Tier 3 engines, approximately 18% were equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines, and only  4% were equipped with Tier 4 Final engines (see excerpt below).14        As demonstrated in the figure above, Tier 4 Interim and Tier 4 Final equipment only accounts for 18%  and 4%, respectively, of all off‐road equipment currently available in the state of California. Thus, by  stating that the Project proposes to use Tier 4 equipment during construction, the Project Developer’s  analysis is relying on a fleet of construction equipment that only accounts for 22% of all off‐road  equipment currently available in the state of California. Therefore, by failing to evaluate the feasibility of  implementing Tier 4 mitigation into the Project’s construction phases, the Project’s construction  emissions are underestimated. Thus, the significance determination made within the DEIR should not be  relied upon to determine Project significance.   Failure to Account for All Imported Grading Material Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project Applicant fails to model all  of the soil import expected to occur during the grading phase of construction. As a result, the Project’s  construction emissions are underestimated.  According the DEIR, “the project would require an estimated 433,000 cubic yards of cut and 526,600  cubic yards of fill for a net import of approximately 93,600 cubic yards of soil” (p. 3‐10). However, review  of the CalEEMod model demonstrates that the model estimates that 50,000 cubic yards of soil will be                                                               13 "White Paper: An Industry Perspective on the California Air Resources Board Proposed Off‐Road Diesel  Regulations." Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, available at: http://www.agc‐ ca.org/uploadedFiles/Member_Services/Regulatory‐Advocacy‐Page‐PDFs/White_Paper_CARB_OffRoad.pdf   14 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August  2015, available at:  https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction_Ordinance_2015.pdf, p.  6  5.2 Packet Pg. 1168 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 9    imported to the Project site during the grading phase of construction (see excerpt below) (Appendix B,  pp. 5, pp. 92, pp. 172).     As you can see in the excerpt above, the Project Applicant underestimates the amount of grading import  by 43,600 cubic yards of soil. This underestimation presents a significant issue, as the inclusion of the  entire amount of material export and import within the model is necessary to calculate emissions  produced from material movement, including truck loading and unloading, and additional hauling truck  trips.15 As a result, emissions generated during Project construction are underestimated.  Updated Analysis Indicates Significant Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions In an effort to accurately determine the Project’s construction and operational emissions, we prepared  an updated CalEEMod model of the Project that includes more site‐specific information and corrected  input parameters. In an updated model, we included the total amount of soil grading import.   Additionally, we accounted for the specialty restaurants and theater that would be built on PA‐2a in the  mixed‐use part of the development. The DEIR failed to specify the land use sizes of the restaurants or  theaters. However, according to Table 3‐2 of the DEIR, the mixed‐use portion of the project, or the  entire PA‐2 site, will have 84,500 square feet of commercial space (see table below) (Table 3‐2, p. 3‐4).    According to the DEIR, PA‐2b will contain 8,000 square feet of retail space (p. 3‐6). Since the Project  Applicant fails to state the land use sizes of the restaurant, theater, or additional retail that will be  constructed on PA‐2a, we conservatively assumed that the remaining 76,500 square feet of commercial  space would be equally divided between those three land uses. Therefore, we modeled emissions  assuming that the PA‐2 portion of the project will be constructed with the following commercial land  use sizes:                                                               15 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user‐39‐s‐guide2016‐3‐1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 3, 26.  5.2 Packet Pg. 1169 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 10    PA‐2 Commercial Land Use Sizes  Land Use Planning Area Size (ft2)  Movie Theater (No Matinee) PA‐2a 25,500  Quality Restaurant PA‐2a 25,500  Strip Mall PA‐2a, PA‐2b 33,500  Total   84,500    Finally, we did not include the Tier 4 Final mitigation, as the Project Applicant fails to assess the  feasibility in obtaining this equipment. However, we did model emissions assuming the 141 pieces of  equipment above 50 horsepower would be equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines and the 3 welders  below 50 horsepower would not have any mitigation, in order to demonstrate the actual reductions that  would be achieved by MM AQ‐2.2.  When correct, site‐specific input parameters are used to model emissions, we find that the Project’s  construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions increase significantly when compared to the  DEIR’s model. Furthermore, we find that the Project’s construction‐related NOx emissions exceed the 10  tons per year (tons/year) threshold set forth by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District  (BAAQMD). Additionally, we find the Project’s operational ROG and NOx emissions also exceed the 10  tons/year thresholds set forth by the BAAQMD (see table below).  Maximum Mitigated Construction Emissions (tons/year)  Model ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5  DEIR 6.3 18.5 0.15 0.14  SWAPE 6.9 37.1 0.25 0.24  BAAQMD Annual Threshold 10 10 15 10  Exceed? No Yes No No    Maximum Mitigated Operational Emissions (tons/year)  Model ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5  DEIR 11.44 25.44 0.21 0.2  SWAPE 12.14 28.75 0.29 0.28  BAAQMD Annual Threshold 10 10 15 10  Exceed? Yes Yes No No    As demonstrated above, when correct, site‐specific input parameters are used to model emissions,  construction‐related NOx emissions and operational NOx and ROG emissions would exceed BAAQMD  thresholds. Our modeling demonstrates that Project activities will generate higher criteria air pollutant  emissions than what was disclosed in the DEIR. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, since the Project  Applicant failed to assess the feasibility in obtaining Tier 4 equipment, it is likely that the construction  emissions estimates will be higher than what is presented above. As a result, an updated DEIR should be  5.2 Packet Pg. 1170 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 11    prepared than includes an updated air pollution model to adequately estimate the Project’s emissions,  and additional mitigation should be incorporated to reduce these emissions to the maximum extent  possible.  Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The DEIR’s air quality analysis determines that the Project construction and operational emissions would  exceed thresholds set forth by the BAAQMD (Table 6‐7, p. 6‐26 and Table 6‐9, p. 6‐32). As result, the  Project proposes several mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions (p.  1‐9). However, even after implementation of mitigation, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s  construction‐related air quality impacts would be significant with respect to NOx (Table 6‐7, p. 6‐26) and  operational air quality impacts would be significant with respect to NOx and ROG (Table 6‐9, p. 6‐32).  While it is true that the Project would result in significant NOx and ROG impacts, the DEIR’s conclusion  that these impacts are “significant and unavoidable” is entirely incorrect. According to CEQA,  “CEQA requires Lead Agencies to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts associated  with discretionary projects. Environmental documents for projects that have any significant  environmental impacts must identify all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce  the impacts below a level of significance. If after the identification of all feasible mitigation  measures, a project is still deemed to have significant environmental impacts, the Lead Agency  can approve a project, but must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to explain why  further mitigation measures are not feasible and why approval of a project with significant  unavoidable impacts is warranted.” 16  As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible  mitigation is considered. Review of the Project’s proposed mitigation measures, however, demonstrates  that not all feasible mitigation is being implemented (p. 1‐9). Therefore, the DEIR’s conclusion that  impacts are significant and unavoidable is unsubstantiated. As a result, additional mitigation measures  should be identified and incorporated in order to reduce the Project’s air quality impacts to the  maximum extent possible. Until all feasible mitigation is reviewed and incorporated into the Project’s  design, impacts from construction‐related NOx emissions and operational NOx and ROG emissions  cannot be considered significant and unavoidable.17  Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR evaluates the Project’s health‐related impact by preparing a health risk assessment (HRA) that  assesses diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions released during construction (Appendix B, pp. 309).  The DEIR determines that the Project would result in an excess cancer risk of 1.94 in one million and  would therefore result in a less than significant impact (p. 6‐36). We find the DEIR’s finding of a less than  significant impact, however to be incorrect for several reasons: (1) the Project Applicant relies on a                                                               16 http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3‐19‐15.pdf, p. 115 of 125  17 See sections titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions” and “Feasible  Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions” on p. 17 and p. 28, respectively, of this letter.  These measures would effectively reduce construction‐related NOx, operational ROG, operational NOx, and DPM  emissions, as well as GHG emissions.  5.2 Packet Pg. 1171 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 12    flawed CalEEMod model to determine toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions; (2) the Project Applicant  failed to utilize the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) guidance to calculate  the health risk calculations; and (3) the Project Applicant failed to conduct an operational HRA.  Incorrect Evaluation of Construction‐related Health Risk As previously stated, the DEIR conducts a construction HRA and determines that the health risk would  be less than significant (p. 6‐36). Specifically, the DEIR states,    “The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction is 1.94 per million, which is  below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non‐cancer hazards for DPM would be below  BAAQMD threshold, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and an acute hazard index  of 0.01. Acute and chronic hazards would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 1.0.  As described above, worst‐case construction risk levels based on screening‐level modeling  (AERSCREEN) and conservative assumptions would be below the BAAQMD’s thresholds  Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than significant” (p. 6‐36).  First, the HRA’s finding of a less than significant impact is not valid, as the analysis relies upon emissions  estimates from a flawed CalEEMod model that underestimates the Project’s emissions, as discussed in  the sections above. Because the emissions estimates from the Project’s CalEEMod model are  underestimated, it is reasonable to assume that the Project’s construction‐HRA also underestimates the  health risk posed to sensitive receptors near the Project site.  Second, the DEIR improperly calculates the Project’s construction‐related health risk impact. Review of  the DEIR’s HRA demonstrates that daily breathing rates of 210, 452, 658, and 928 liters per kilogram per  day (L/kg‐day) were used to estimate the cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants and during the  third trimester of pregnancy, respectively, which is inconsistent with guidance created by OEHHA, the  organization responsible for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct health risk  assessments in California (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 309).    By doing this, the HRA underestimates the susceptibility of receptors to TAC emissions. As a result, we  find the Project’s health‐related impact to be misrepresented and should not be relied upon to  determine Project significance.  5.2 Packet Pg. 1172 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 13    OEHHA recommends utilizing the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and the 80th percentile  breathing rates for receptors above 2 years old, which can be found in the 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots  Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.18 Chapter five of this document discusses age‐specific breathing  rates for use in health risk assessments; OEHHA recommends the long‐term daily breathing rates in  Table 5.7 of this document (see excerpt below).19      A comparison of the daily breathing rates used within the Project’s health risk calculations and the daily  breathing rates demonstrated in the excerpt above demonstrates that the Project Applicant utilized  incorrect daily breathing rates for each age group. As a result, the Project’s health risk impacts are  underestimated. As a result, we find the DEIR’s construction HRA and subsequent significance  determination to be incorrect and unreliable and should not be relied upon to determine the  significance of the Project’s construction‐related health impact.   Failure to Conduct an Operational Health Risk Assessment Although the DEIR also conducts an HRA to evaluate the health risk posed to new, on‐site receptors  from exposure to TAC emissions from off‐site stationary sources and mobile sources (p. 6‐37), in  addition to the construction HRA, the DEIR fails to evaluate, whatsoever, the health risk posed to nearby  sensitive receptor as a result of operational emissions generated by the Project. The DEIR states,                                                               18 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf   19 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf   5.2 Packet Pg. 1173 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 14     “The project would not be considered a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose   a possible risk to off‐site uses. The project involves the future development of mixed‐use project   that would include commercial and residential uses. The project would not include stationary   sources that emit TACs and would not generate a significant amount of heavy‐duty truck trips (a   source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, no impacts to surrounding receptors   associated with TACs would occur” (p. 6‐39 ‐ 6‐40).  The DEIR’s failure to conduct to a quantified operational HRA, however, is incorrect. The omission of a  proper HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by OEHHA. 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 2015.20 This guidance document describes  the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. 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 DEIR 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 operation should have been evaluated by the DEIR. As a result, the DEIR fails  to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitive receptor impacts that may occur as a result of  exposure to the Project’s potentially substantial air pollutant emissions. These recommendations reflect  the most recent HRA policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors  from operation should be included in a revised DEIR for the Project.   Updated Analysis Indicates Potentially Significant Impact In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by Project construction and operation to nearby  sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening‐level HRA. The results of our assessment, as  described below, provide substantial evidence that the Project’s construction and operational DPM  emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified.   In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening  level air quality dispersion model. 21 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the  OEHHA22 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (CAPCOA)23 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                                                               20 “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   21 “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   22 “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  23 “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   5.2 Packet Pg. 1174 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 15    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 HRA of the Project’s health‐related impact to sensitive receptors using the  mitigated annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE annual CalEEMod output files, attached to  this report for reference. According to the Google Earth, the closest sensitive receptor is approximately  69 meters from the Project site. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a  residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the 3rd trimester stage of life. We also assumed  that construction and operation of the Project would occur in quick succession, with no gaps between  each Project phase. The SWAPE CalEEMod model’s annual emissions indicate that construction activities  will generate approximately 502 pounds of DPM over the approximately 5.2 year construction period, or  approximately 1,887 days. 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.  ܧ݉݅ݏݏ݅݋݊ ܴܽݐ݁ ቀ ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ቁൌ 502 ݈ܾݏ 1,887 ݀ܽݕݏ ൈ 453.6 ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݈ܾݏ ൈ 1 ݀ܽݕ 24 ݄݋ݑݎݏ ൈ 1 ݄݋ݑݎ 3,600 ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ݏ ൌ ૙.૙૙૚૜ૢૡ ࢍ/࢙   Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.001398 grams per second (g/s). The  SWAPE’s annual CalEEMod output files indicate that operational activities will generate approximately  576 pounds of DPM per year over the 24.8‐years of operation. Applying the same equation used to  estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we estimate the following emission rate for Project  operation.  ܧ݉݅ݏݏ݅݋݊ ܴܽݐ݁ ቀ ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ቁൌ 576 ݈ܾݏ 365 ݀ܽݕݏ ൈ 453.6 ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݈ܾݏ ൈ 1 ݀ܽݕ 24 ݄݋ݑݎݏ ൈ 1 ݄݋ݑݎ 3,600 ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ݏ ൌ ૙.૙૙ૡ૛ૠૢ ࢍ/࢙   Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.008279 g/s. Construction and  operational activity was simulated as a 79.7‐acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with  dimensions of 1,217 meters by 265 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent  the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy‐duty vehicles, and an initial  vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon  release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model‐default inputs for wind speed and  direction distribution.  The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single‐hour DPM concentrations  from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average  concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single‐hour concentration by 10%.24  For example, for the MEIR the single‐hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project  construction is approximately 0.2549 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying  this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.02549 µg/m3                                                               24 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA‐454R‐92‐019_OCR.pdf   5.2 Packet Pg. 1175 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 16    for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single‐hour concentration at the MEIR  estimated by AERSCREEN is approximately 1.509 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind.  Multiplying this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of  0.1509 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.  We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptors located closest to the Project site using  applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the BAAQMD. Consistent with the construction  schedule proposed by the DEIR, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the  entire 3rd trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), the infantile stage of life (0‐2 years), and the first 2.95  years of the child stages of life (2 to 16 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was  used for the remainder of the 30‐year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the child  stages of life (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.25 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.26 Finally, according to  BAAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) Value of 0.85 for the 3rd trimester and  infant receptors, 0.72 for child receptors, and 0.73 for the adult receptors.27 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)                                                               25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf   26 “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: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf  27 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines.” BAAQMD, January 2016, available at:  http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/rules‐and‐regs/workshops/2016/reg‐2‐5/hra‐ guidelines_clean_jan_2016‐pdf.pdf?la=en  5.2 Packet Pg. 1176 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 17    Activity Duration  (years)  Concentration  (µg/m3)  Breathing Rate  (L/kg‐day) ASF Cancer Risk  Construction 0.25 0.02549 361 10 2.9E‐07  3rd Trimester Duration 0.25      3rd Trimester Exposure 2.9E‐07  Construction 2.00 0.02549 1090 10 7.1E‐06  Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 7.1E‐06  Construction 2.95 0.02549 573 3 1.4E‐06  Operation 11.05 0.1509 572 3 3.1E‐05  Child Exposure Duration 14.00      Child Exposure 3.2E‐05  Operation 14.00 0.1509 261 1 6.1E‐06  Adult Exposure Duration 14.00      Adult Exposure 6.1E‐06  Lifetime Exposure Duration 30.00     Lifetime Exposure 4.6E‐05    The excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at  the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation  are approximately 6.1, 32, 7.1, and 0.29 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk  over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the MEIR is approximately 46 in one million.  Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the third trimester of pregnancy to  provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The child and lifetime cancer risks  exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.  It should be noted that our analysis represents a screening‐level HRA, which is known to be more  conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.28 The purpose of a screening‐level HRA,  however, is to determine if a more refined HRA 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 HRA  that is more representative of site specific concentrations. Our screening‐level HRA demonstrates that  construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact,  when correct exposure assumptions and up‐to‐date, applicable guidance are used. As a result, a refined  HRA must be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction and operation  using site‐specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules. A DEIR must be prepared to  adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impact, and should include additional mitigation measures  to reduce these impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.29  Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions Our updated air quality analysis and HRA demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled  correctly, construction‐related NOx and DPM emissions would result in a higher significant air quality  and health risk impacts than what was stated in the DEIR. Therefore, additional mitigation measures  must be identified and incorporated in a DEIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level.                                                                28 http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf p. 1‐5  29 See section titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions” on p. 28 of this  letter. These measures would effectively reduce operational ROG, NOx, and DPM emissions, as well as GHG  emissions.  5.2 Packet Pg. 1177 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 18      Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation  Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants such as  particulate matter and NOx.30 DPM and NOx are a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion and are 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 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: 31   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.   As previously mentioned, MM AQ‐2.2 requires that all on‐site equipment 50 horsepower (hp) or  greater be equipped with Tier 4 engines (p. 6‐33). We recommend that all diesel nonroad  construction equipment must have engines that meet EPA Tier 4 Final nonroad emission  standards.   All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra‐low  sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend32 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.33  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.34 These actions include but are not  limited to:        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.35 Replacements often                                                               30http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  31 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  32 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  33http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf  34http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf  35 Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/alternative‐vehicle‐fuels   5.2 Packet Pg. 1178 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 19    require some re‐engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are  benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.36  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. 37  It should be noted that actual emissions  reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. Should the  Applicant be unable to obtain Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final off‐road equipment engines for all pieces of  equipment with 50 hp or greater, the Applicant should consider use of engines that meet Tier 3 off‐road  emission standards and engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 2 or Level 3 Verified Diesel  Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).    Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures38 report also proposes the use of electric  and/or hybrid construction equipment as a way to mitigate DPM emissions. 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. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from  companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation,39 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 Caterpillar40. 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.41  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.   Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures42 report recommends that the Project  Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to                                                               36 Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/verified‐diesel‐tech/verified‐technologies‐list‐clean‐diesel    37 Retrofit Technologies, EPA, available at:  https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016‐ 03/documents/420f10027.pdf   38http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  39 Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at:http://www.petersoncorp.com/wp‐ content/uploads/peterson_electric_grinders1.pdf  40 Electric Power Products, available at:http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power‐systems/electric‐power‐ generation.html  41http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  42http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  5.2 Packet Pg. 1179 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 20    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  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:43   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 Statement44 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: 45   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 these measures, we also recommend that the Applicant implement the following  mitigation measures, called “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,”46 that are recommended by the  Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD):  1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency 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.                                                               43 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  44 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.  45 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  46http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl_10‐2013.pdf  5.2 Packet Pg. 1180 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 21      This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject  heavy‐duty off‐road equipment.   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 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  California Air Resources Board (ARB) 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 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.    These measures offer a cost‐effective, feasible way to incorporate lower‐emitting equipment into the  Project’s construction fleet, which subsequently reduces NOx and DPM emissions released during  Project construction. An updated 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.   5.2 Packet Pg. 1181 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 22    Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Determine Significance of Greenhouse Gas Impacts The DEIR determines the significance of the Project’s GHG impact for the Project’s first operational year  by demonstrating compliance with the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which sets a GHG  reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 (p. 10‐15). The CAP was adopted in November  2010 and updated in 201347. Because the CAP was adopted before Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) and  Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) were codified into law, the Project’s GHG impact was also evaluated by calculating  the Project’s emissions in the year 2030 and comparing the emissions to year 2000 levels in order to  determine if the Project would achieve a GHG reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as  mandated in AB 197 and SB 32. Review of the DEIR’s GHG analysis demonstrates that: (1) the DEIR’s  method of using a statewide GHG reduction goal as a CEQA threshold to determine whether the  proposed Project has significant GHG emissions is incorrect; (2) the CAP is not applicable to the Project;  and (3) regardless of if the CAP is applicable, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the CAP.  As a result, we find the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG  impact to be unsubstantiated and incorrect.    Incorrect Methodology Used to Determine GHG Impact In an effort to comply with CEQA, AB 197, and SB 32 the DEIR compares the Project’s construction and  operational GHG emissions to the emissions that would be generated by the Project in the absence of  any GHG reduction measures, also known as a Business As Usual scenario (BAU). Using this method, the  DEIR concludes that if the Project achieves a minimum 40 percent reduction in GHGs between the BAU  and As Proposed scenarios for 2030, which is consistent with the AB 197 and SB 32 statewide reduction  goals, then the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact (p. 10‐22). This use of these  thresholds to determine whether the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, however, is  flawed and should not be relied upon to determine impact significance, as a recent ruling by the  California Supreme Court in Center for Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of  Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (“Newhall”)  (Newhall Case)48 makes clear.  The Newhall Case  concludes that lead agencies cannot use the statewide GHG emission reduction percentage as the CEQA  threshold to determine whether a specific project‐level proposed Project has significant GHG emissions  without demonstrating with substantial evidence and analysis that such a consistency comparison was  applicable.49 As a result, this method of determining Project significance is incorrect and should not be  relied upon.     The DEIR incorrectly relies on the BAU method to determine the Project’s GHG impacts. According to the  DEIR, the Project would have to achieve a 40 percent reduction from BAU to result in a less than  significant GHG impact. By modeling the Project’s emissions within CalEEMod for the year 2000, the  DEIR takes the statewide reduction goal for 2030 and calculates the percent reduction from BAU  compared to the proposed Project, and subsequently compares the total percent reduction of the                                                               47 https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin‐Climate‐Action‐Plan‐Update‐2013?bidId=, p. 6  48http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S217763.PDF  49http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm  5.2 Packet Pg. 1182 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 23  proposed Project’s GHG emissions to the statewide GHG reduction goals (p. 10‐23).  Using a straight‐line  comparison between Project‐specific and statewide GHG emission reductions, the At Dublin Project  would reduce its GHG emissions by 47 percent in 2030, which, according to the DEIR, is consistent with  the statewide reduction goal (p. 10‐23). As a result, the DEIR concludes that the Project would have a  less than significant GHG impact (p. 10‐23). The use of a “straight‐line” comparison between Project‐ specific and statewide GHG emissions, both by the Newhall Ranch EIR and the At Dublin Project DEIR,  however, is flawed, because the percent reduction required by the proposed Project at the project‐level  is not directly comparable to the percent reduction required to meet the statewide goal. Since the  Newhall Case prohibits this approach, the City cannot rely on this method for its GHG assessment.  The  City must identify an acceptable method of compliance with CEQA, AB 197, and SB 32 for the Project’s  GHG emissions, and must determine a Newhall‐compliant alternative threshold for the Project‐specific  GHG emissions.  The City’s CAP is Not Applicable to the Project The Project Applicant determines that the Project will generate approximately 14,800.21 metric tons of  carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2e/yr) during the first year of operation (Table 10‐4, p. 10‐ 20). To determine whether the Project will conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulations  adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, however, the DEIR looks into the Project’s  consistency with the measures set forth the in the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) (p. 10‐26).  Using the City’s CAP as significance criteria, the DEIR concludes,  “For 2020, the analysis of the project’s cumulative contribution to climate change and GHG  emissions is the analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable CAP measures that is  provided in Table 10‐7, Project Consistency with the City of Dublin CAP. The project would be  consistent with the applicable CAP reduction measures. Thus, the project would help implement  the CAP, and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the  purpose of reducing GHG emissions. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard”  (p. 10‐26).  As previously mentioned, the City of Dublin’s CAP established a GHG emissions reduction target of 15%  below 2010 levels by 2020.50 The CAP states,  “The 2010 City of Dublin CAP established a reduction target of 20% below business‐as‐usual  GHG emissions by 2020. The updated City of Dublin CAP proposed a reduction target of 15%  below 2010 emissions levels by 2020. This target will be adopted by resolution, as a component  of the CAP. This reduction target establishes a level below which the contribution to GHG  emissions by activities covered under the CAP will be less than cumulatively considerable under  CEQA standards.”51   As you can tell in the excerpt above, the City of Dublin’s CAP is designed to reduce emissions for the  2020 target and, therefore, is only applicable for projects that will be fully operational by 2020. Review  50 https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin‐Climate‐Action‐Plan‐Update‐2013?bidId=, p. 5  51 https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin‐Climate‐Action‐Plan‐Update‐2013?bidId=, p. 10  5.2 Packet Pg. 1183 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 24    of the DEIR demonstrates that the Project will not begin construction until April 2020 and will be  completed by June 2025 (p. 6‐24). Thus, the first full year of operation will not be until 2026. As a result,  the CAP is not applicable to the Project as the CAP fails to implement a strategy past the 2020 reduction  goals. Since the CAP is not applicable to the Project the Project Applicant cannot claim consistency with  the CAP to determine Project significance.  Failure to Demonstrate Consistency with the CAP Regardless of if the CAP is even applicable to the Project, the DEIR fails to demonstrate consistency with  the CAP for the following reasons: (1) the DEIR fails to make the mitigation measures outlined in the CAP  that the Project would be consistent with binding and enforceable; and (2) the DEIR incorrectly states  that the Project would be consistent with a transportation‐related measure outlined in the CAP.   First, review of the DEIR demonstrates that the Project fails to actually demonstrate compliance with all  of the measures outlined in Table 10‐7, which lists the Project’s consistency with applicable measures  set forth in the CAP, because the DEIR fails to incorporate these measures as mitigation within the  Project’s list of proposed mitigation (Table 10‐7, p. 10‐27). Specifically, the DEIR fails to comply with the  following requirement, as required by Section 15183.5 Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of  Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the CEQA guidelines,     “An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative   impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project,   and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those   requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project.”52  As stated above, CEQA requires the DEIR to identify which requirements apply to the Project and  requires the DEIR make these requirements binding and enforceable to the Project by listing them as  mitigation measures, if they are not already binding and enforceable in the City’s CAP. However, review  of the DEIR demonstrates that the Project fails to include any of the CAP’s measures that the DEIR claims  that the Project would be consistent with as mitigation measures or as mandatory conditions of Project  approval (Table ES‐1, p. 1‐10) (see excerpt below).                                                                       52  https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I872A68805F7511DFBF66AC2936A1B85A?viewType=FullText&origin ationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29  5.2 Packet Pg. 1184 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 25    Second, the Project Applicant incorrectly states that the Project will be consistent with a transportation‐ related measure identified in the CAP. Specifically, the Project Applicant claims that it will be a Transit‐ Oriented Development (TOD) (see excerpt below) (Table 10‐7, p. 10‐27).    As you can see in the excerpt above, the Project Applicant claims that the Project will be consistent with  the TOD measure because the Project site is within 1.5 miles of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.   The City’s CAP does not include a specific definition of TOD projects. However, Appendix C of the CAP  includes a memorandum from Fehr & Peers transportation consultants titled “City of Dublin Transit  Oriented Development Transportation Impact Fee Assessment”. According to the memorandum, the  consultants have “reviewed data from a variety of sources to develop a likely range of vehicle trip  reductions for transit‐oriented residential development (TOD) adjacent to the Bay Area Rapid Transit  (BART) stations in the City of Dublin.” The memorandum reviews the than‐recent legislation and  research. The recommendation in the memorandum is to take into account “a reduction in vehicle trips  of 25 percent for multi‐family residential developments located in a mixed‐use environment within a  barrier‐free half mile walk of a BART station” (emphasis added). According to the City’s own CAP a  project can account for a trip reduction and, accordingly, emissions reduction, if it is situated within  barrier‐free half mile from the BART station. There is no basis therefore for the DEIR conclusion that the  Project is consistent with the CAP’s measures.   Moreover, BART’s Transit‐Oriented Development Guide states that BART adopted a TOD Policy to  increase TOD development within a half mile of a BART station. The BART Guide goes onto say that,   “Overall, the proportion of transit riders walking to transit is greatest within ¼ mile or less of a   station, typically declining by one‐half between ¼ and ½ miles, and becoming insignificant   beyond ½ mile.”53   Therefore, per BART’s Transit‐Oriented Guide, TOD projects that are more than a half mile from a BART  station do not typically attract a significant amount of transit riders who will walk to the station. Thus,  according to the TOD Guidelines developed by BART, the Project Applicant cannot claim consistency  with this measure, as the number of transit‐oriented riders coming to the station would be insignificant  since the Project site is approximately 1.5 miles away. Thus, the GHG reductions from being a TOD  project are also insignificant.  The Project fails to implement the CAP‐related measures as binding and enforceable within the DEIR and  fails to demonstrate consistency with measure A.1.1 from the CAP. As a result, even though the CAP is                                                               53 “Transit‐Oriented Development Guidelines,” BART, May 2017, available at:  https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_TODGuidelinesFinal2017_compressed_0.pdf, p. 42  5.2 Packet Pg. 1185 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 26    not applicable to the Project, the Project Applicant fails to demonstrate consistency with the entire City  CAP and therefore should not rely on the CAP to determine Project significance. The Project Applicant  should prepare an updated DEIR with an updated GHG analysis in order to adequately evaluate the  Project’s potential GHG impact.  Updated Analysis Indicates Significant Greenhouse Gas Impact In an effort to adequately assess the Project’s GHG impact, we relied upon emissions estimates from  SWAPE’s updated CalEEMod model and compared these emissions to the BAAQMD’s bright‐line  threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year. As you can see in the table below, the Project’s total GHG emissions  are approximately 22,157 MT CO2e/year, which is above the significance threshold of 1,100 MT  CO2e/year and significantly higher than the emissions reported by the DEIR (see excerpt below).  Annual Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Emission Source Proposed Project (MT CO2e/yr)  Construction (Amortized) 404  Area 44  Energy 5,233  Mobile 15,673  Waste 504  Water 295  Project Total 22,157  Significance Threshold (MT CO2e/yr) 1,100  Exceed? Yes    As demonstrated in the table above, when we compared the proposed Project’s GHG emissions from  the SWAPE CalEEMod model, we find that the Project would emit approximately 22,157 MT CO2e/year.  The greatly exceeds the BAAQMD’s recommended threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/yr. Until an updated  GHG analysis is prepared in an updated DEIR that adequately evaluates the Project’s total GHG  emissions from all sources, the DEIR should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.  According to the BAAQMD, when the Project’s emissions exceed the 1,100 MT CO2e/year screening‐ level threshold, a more detailed review of the Project’s GHG emissions is warranted.54 BAAQMD  recommends a per service population (SP) efficiency threshold to conduct the detailed review. BAAQMD  proposed efficiency target of 4.6 MT year per service population (MT CO2e/sp/year) for project‐level  analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e/sp/year for plan level projects (e.g., program‐level projects such as general  plans).55 Therefore, per BAAQMD guidance, because the Project’s GHG emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s  1,100 MT CO2e/year screening‐level threshold, the Project’s emissions should be compared to the  proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e/sp/year.                                                               54 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en,  p. 9‐4 ‐ 9‐5  55 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en,  p. 2‐4, p. 4‐10  5.2 Packet Pg. 1186 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 27    According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) CEQA & Climate Change  report, service population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs  supported by the project”.56 The DEIR determines that the Project will generate approximately 1,836  residents, however, fails to state the number of employees (Table 15‐4, p. 15‐6). Therefore, based on  the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Level 1 ‐ Developer Fee Justification Study for Los Angeles  Unified School District that lists an employee generation factor of 0.00479 employees per square foot,  we estimated that the Project would generate approximately 2,175 employees (454,000 square feet x  0.00479 employees/square foot).57 Dividing the Project’s GHG emissions by a service population of  4,011 people (1,836 residents + 2,175 employees), we find that the Project would emit 5.52 MT  CO2e/sp/year. When we compare the Project’s per service population GHG emissions to the BAAQMD  efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/sp/year, we find that the Project would result in a significant GHG  impact (see table below).  Annual Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Source Emissions Unit  Total Annual Emissions 22,157 MT CO2e/year  Maximum Service Population 4,011 People  Per Service Population Annual Emissions 5.52 MT CO2e/sp/year  BAAQMD Project Level Efficiency Threshold 4.6 MT CO2e/sp/year  Exceed? Yes ‐    As you can see in the table above, the Project’s total GHG per service population emissions of 5.52 MT  CO2e/sp/year exceed the BAAQMD efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/sp/year, thus resulting in a  potentially significant impact. Based on the results of this analysis, an updated DEIR must be prepared  for the Project, and mitigation should be implemented to mitigate the impact below the level of  significance, as mandated by CEQA.  Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project’s GHG emissions may present a potentially significant  impact. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are  applicable to the Project. Additional mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce  operational GHG emissions include, but are not limited to, the following:  58     Use passive solar design, such as: 59,60                                                               56 “CEQA & Climate Change.” & Climate Change.” CAPCOA, January 2008, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA‐White‐Paper.pdf, p. 71‐72.  57 Los Angeles Unified School District, Level 1 ‐ Developer Fee Justification Study for Los Angeles Unified School  District, page 15, March 2014.  58 http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf   59 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental  Documents, September 1997.  60 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997.  5.2 Packet Pg. 1187 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 28    o Orient buildings and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar, heating during  cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons.   Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of  operation of outdoor lighting.   Develop and follow a “green streets guide” that requires:   o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt;  o Installation of permeable pavement to allow for storm water infiltration; and  o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.61    Implement Project design features such as:  o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight;  o Install high‐albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane;  o Install high‐efficiency HVAC with hot‐gas reheat;  o Install formaldehyde‐free insulation; and   o Use recycled‐content gypsum board.   Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide  information on energy management services for large energy users.   Meet “reach” goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use.   Require all buildings to become “LEED” certified.   Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes.    Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.    Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems  and avoid peak energy use.    Plant low‐VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from  parked vehicles.    Use CARB‐certified or electric landscaping equipment in project and tenant operations; and  introduce electric lawn, and garden equipment exchange program.    Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to infiltrate  on‐site.     In addition to the measures discussed above, the SCAQMD has previously recommended additional  mitigation measures for operational NOx emissions that result primarily from truck activity emissions,  which would also reduce the Project’s operational GHG emissions. Since the Project proposes to  construct 454,000 square feet of combined retail, theater, and restaurant space, these measures would  apply and should be considered. Measures recommended for the Waterman Logistic Center that are  also applicable for this Project’s proposed land uses include:62   Provide electric vehicle charging stations that are accessible for trucks.                                                                61 See Irvine Sustainable Travelways “Green Street” Guidelines;  https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=8617; and Cool Houston Plan;  https://www.harcresearch.org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/CoolHoustonPlan_0.pdf    62  SCAQMD Comment Letter in Response to MND for the Waterman Logistic Center, January 2018, available at:  http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/comment‐letters/2015/january/mndwaterman.pdf  5.2 Packet Pg. 1188 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 29     Provide electrical hookups at the onsite loading docks and at the truck stops for truckers to plug  in any onboard auxiliary equipment.   Provide minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between truck traffic  and sensitive receptors.   Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the facility.    On‐site equipment should be alternative fueled.   Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.   Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential  areas.   Should the proposed Project generate significant emissions, the Lead Agency should require  mitigation that requires accelerated phase‐in for non‐diesel powered trucks. For example,  natural gas trucks, including Class 8 HHD trucks, are commercially available today. Natural gas  trucks can provide a substantial reduction in emissions, and may be more financially feasible  today due to reduced fuel costs compared to diesel. In the Final CEQA document, the Lead  Agency should require a phase‐in schedule for these cleaner operating trucks to reduce project  impacts.  Furthermore, the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes various  feasible mitigation measures that would reduce on‐site area emissions that are applicable to the  proposed Project’s retail land use, and include, but are not limited to: 63   Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized.   Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution  system.   Installation of dual‐paned or other energy efficient windows.   Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed.   Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off‐white colors that  reflect heat away from buildings.  Finally, additional, feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas  Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels.64  GHG emissions are produced during fuel  combustion, and are emitted by on‐road vehicles and by off‐road equipment. Therefore, to reduce the  Project’s mobile‐source GHG emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made.     Limit Parking Supply  o This mitigation measure will change parking requirements and types of supply within  the Project site to encourage “smart growth” development and alternative  transportation choices by project residents and employees.  This can be accomplished in  a multi‐faceted strategy:   Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements                                                               63 Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2016.  64 http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf   5.2 Packet Pg. 1189 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 30     Creation of maximum parking requirements   Provision of shared parking   Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost  o Unbundling separates parking from property costs, requiring those who wish to  purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost from the property cost. This  removes the burden from those who do not wish to utilize a parking space. Parking  should be priced separately from home rents/purchase prices or office leases.   Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program  o This project can provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to  incentivize the use of public transport. The project may also provide free transfers  between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly  subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from  parking to offset the cost of such a project.   Provide End of Trip Facilities  o Non‐residential projects can provide "end‐of‐trip" facilities for bicycle riders including  showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces. End‐of‐trip facilities encourage  the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End‐of‐ trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle  commuting.   Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing  o The project can implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information  sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction  strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary  marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may  include:   New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options   Event promotions   Publications   Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program  o The project can provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public  transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority  parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride‐share or use  alternatively fueled vehicles. The project should provide wide parking spaces to  accommodate vanpool vehicles.   Implement Bike‐Sharing Program  o This project can establish a bike‐sharing program to reduce VMTs. Stations should be at  regular intervals throughout the project site.    Price Workplace Parking  o The project should implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This  may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above  market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee  5.2 Packet Pg. 1190 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 31    parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available  alternatives.  o Though similar to the Employee Parking “Cash‐Out” strategy, this strategy focuses on  implementing market rate and above market rate pricing to provide a price signal for  employees to consider alternative modes for their work commute.   Implement Employee Parking "Cash‐Out"  o The project can require employers to offer employee parking “cash‐out.” The term  “cash‐out” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of  forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost  of the parking space to the employer.   Provide Employer‐Sponsored Shuttle  o The Project could implement an employer‐sponsored shuttle to and from the  Dublin/Pleasanton BART station located 1.5 miles from the Project site.  A shuttle will  typically service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Scheduling  is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of  vehicle and operating cost.  Finally, our air quality analysis demonstrated that operational ROG (also referred to as VOC) emissions  will exceed BAAQMD’s annual thresholds. In an effort to mitigate these measures, the following  mitigation measures should be considered.  Use of Zero‐VOC Emissions Paint The Project Applicant should consider the use of low VOC coatings. The use of zero‐VOC emission paint  has been required for numerous projects that have undergone CEQA review. Zero‐VOC emission paints  are commercially available. The Project Applicant already implements MM AQ‐2.3 which limits the  interior coating to VOC rating to 20 grams/Liter (g/L) and exterior coatings to be less than 100 g/L. We  recommend that the Project Applicant strengthen this measure including use of “super‐compliant”  paints, which have a VOC standard of less than 10 g/L. 65    Use of Material that Do Not Require Paint Using materials that do not require painting is a common mitigation measure where VOC emissions are  a concern. Interior and exterior surfaces, such as concrete, can be left unpainted.     Use of Spray Equipment with Greater Transfer Efficiencies Various coatings and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic  spray, high‐volume, low‐pressure (HVLP) spray, roll coater, flow coater, dip coater, etc. in order to  maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of  coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of coating solids used in the application process,  expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of                                                               65 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business‐detail?title=super‐compliant‐coatings  5.2 Packet Pg. 1191 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 32    either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQMD is now able to certify HVLP  spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater.66     When combined, these measures offer a cost‐effective, feasible way to incorporate lower‐emitting  design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces GHG emissions released during  Project operation, as well as operational NOx, ROG, and DPM emissions.  An updated DEIR must be  prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated GHG analysis to  ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce operational NOx, ROG, and  GHG emissions to below thresholds. The Project Applicant also needs to demonstrate commitment to  the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s operational  GHG emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.  Sincerely,       Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.    Hadley Nolan                                                                   66 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/spray‐equipment‐transfer‐efficiency  5.2 Packet Pg. 1192 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 5.2 Packet Pg. 1193 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. • Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1194 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 5.2 Packet Pg. 1195 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5.2 Packet Pg. 1196 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5 principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). 5.2 Packet Pg. 1197 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1198 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1199 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1200 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) HADLEY KATHRYN NOLAN SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (678) 551-0836 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: hadley@swape.com EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES B.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETY JUNE 2016 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING • Modeled construction and operational activities for proposed land use projects using CalEEMod to quantify criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. • Organized presentations containing figures and tables that compare results of criteria air pollutant analyses to thresholds. • Quantified ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations using AERSCREEN, a U.S. EPA recommended screening level dispersion model. • Conducted construction and operational health risk assessments for residential, worker, and school children sensitive receptors. • Prepared reports that discuss adequacy of air quality and health risk analyses conducted for proposed land use developments subject to CEQA review by verifying compliance with local, state, and regional regulations. SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Evaluated environmental impact reports for proposed projects to identify discrepancies with the methods used to quantify and assess GHG impacts. • Quantified GHG emissions for proposed projects using CalEEMod to produce reports, tables, and figures that compare emissions to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. • Determined compliance of proposed land use developments with AB 32 GHG reduction targets, with GHG significance thresholds recommended by Air Quality Management Districts in California, and with guidelines set forth by CEQA. PROJECT ANALYST: ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DIRECT TRANSFER FACILITY • Assessed air quality impacts resulting from implementation of a proposed Collection Service Agreement for Exclusive Residential and Commercial Garbage, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Waste Collection Services for a community. • Organized tables and maps to demonstrate potential air quality impacts resulting from proposed hauling trip routes. • Conducted air quality analyses that compared quantified criteria air pollutant emissions released during construction of direct transfer facility to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. • Prepared final analytical report to demonstrate local and regional air quality impacts, as well as GHG impacts. PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF LEAD PRODUCTS FOR PROPOSITION 65 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION • Calculated human exposure and lifetime health risk for over 300 lead products undergoing Proposition 65 compliance review. • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data and produced tables, charts, and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs) to determine level of compliance. • Prepared final analytical lead exposure Certificate of Merit (COM) reports and organized supporting data for use in environmental enforcement statute Proposition 65 cases. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Academic Honoree, Dean’s List, University of California, Los Angeles MAR 2013, MAR 2014, JAN 2015, JAN 2016 5.2 Packet Pg. 1201 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing)                   ATTACHMENT  5.2 Packet Pg. 1202 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 598.00 Space 5.38 239,200.00 0 Parking Lot 2,032.00 Space 18.29 812,800.00 0 Hotel 240.00 Room 8.00 348,480.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 300.00 Dwelling Unit 7.89 300,000.00 858 Condo/Townhouse 200.00 Dwelling Unit 12.50 402,944.00 572 Single Family Housing 180.00 Dwelling Unit 23.50 459,476.00 515 Strip Mall 215.00 1000sqft 4.94 215,000.00 0 Movie Theater (No Matinee)25.50 1000sqft 0.59 25,500.00 0 Quality Restaurant 25.50 1000sqft 0.59 25,500.00 0 Strip Mall 33.50 1000sqft 0.77 33,500.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 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 2026Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) At Dublin Project Alameda County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 1 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1203 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Project Characteristics - 2026 operational year because the Applicant's construction schedule ends in 2025 Land Use - land use sizes for PA-2a not provided. Strip Mall on PA-1 is 215,000 sf Mixed Use land use (from PA-2) would have 84,500 sf of commercial land use (Table 3-2, pp. 56). In order to provide a conservative analysis, split the 84,500 sf between the movie theater, strip mall, and restaurants, with an additional 8,000 square feet of retail space being constructed on PA-2b Construction Phase - Construction schedule per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - demolition equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - site preparation equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Grading equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - infratructure equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Building Construction (Commercial) equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Paving (commercial) equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Building Construction (apartments) equipment per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Building Construction (for sale) equipment per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Paving (For Sale) equipment per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Architectural Coating (Commercial) is the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Architectural Coating (Apartments) per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Architectual Coating (For Sale) per the DEIR. Grading - Grading size per the DEIR. Demolition - Trips and VMT - Architectural Coating - architectural coating g/L per the DEIR Vehicle Trips - defaults for Quality restaurant and movie theater because were not included in the DEIR's TIA Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - mitigation per the DEIR Energy Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Water Mitigation - Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 2 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1204 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 20.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 20.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 20.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 12.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 18.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 14.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 34.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 3 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1205 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 305.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 155.00 653.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 60.00 393.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,550.00 696.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 544.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,550.00 740.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,550.00 1,044.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 391.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 566.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 566.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 390.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 4 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1206 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/18/2020 6/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/15/2021 9/30/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/10/2020 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/25/2027 9/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/13/2039 6/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/3/2033 4/1/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/12/2039 5/30/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/14/2040 4/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/17/2040 12/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/18/2040 12/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/21/2041 5/30/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/11/2020 4/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/19/2020 4/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/16/2021 1/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/13/2039 5/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/26/2027 6/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/4/2033 6/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/14/2039 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/15/2040 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2040 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/19/2040 12/3/2023 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5,224.00 387.50 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 93,600.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,000.00 402,944.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 324,000.00 459,476.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 58.44 23.50 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 5 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1207 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 6 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1208 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 2.0 Emissions Summary tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 7.43 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 7.36 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 9.51 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.92 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 42.53 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 7 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1209 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 2020 2.9875 32.0936 18.4835 0.0366 6.3904 1.4965 7.8869 3.3408 1.3800 4.7208 0.0000 3,231.703 9 3,231.703 9 0.9503 0.0000 3,255.462 3 2021 7.0230 60.0189 45.4766 0.1174 10.4225 2.4185 12.8410 4.6459 2.2383 6.8842 0.0000 10,592.93 98 10,592.93 98 1.8403 0.0000 10,638.94 62 2022 9.1383 50.0223 47.3331 0.1331 7.5338 1.7824 9.3162 2.6574 1.6571 4.3145 0.0000 12,064.97 50 12,064.97 50 1.7231 0.0000 12,108.05 26 2023 6.7482 25.4478 29.0685 0.0918 4.3234 0.8132 5.1366 1.1687 0.7614 1.9302 0.0000 8,372.690 9 8,372.690 9 0.8252 0.0000 8,393.320 8 2024 3.8839 9.5055 10.6720 0.0388 2.0536 0.2326 2.2861 0.5551 0.2196 0.7747 0.0000 3,550.226 9 3,550.226 9 0.2695 0.0000 3,556.964 2 2025 1.4912 3.0356 3.4961 0.0128 0.6953 0.0682 0.7635 0.1879 0.0644 0.2523 0.0000 1,171.096 0 1,171.096 0 0.0881 0.0000 1,173.297 5 Maximum 9.1383 60.0189 47.3331 0.1331 10.4225 2.4185 12.8410 4.6459 2.2383 6.8842 0.0000 12,064.97 50 12,064.97 50 1.8403 0.0000 12,108.05 26 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 8 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1210 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 2020 0.6273 11.4007 20.7664 0.0366 6.3810 0.0579 6.4389 3.3385 0.0578 3.3963 0.0000 3,231.700 4 3,231.700 4 0.9503 0.0000 3,255.458 7 2021 3.6210 33.9674 49.9566 0.1174 10.2478 0.2057 10.4535 4.6031 0.1995 4.8025 0.0000 10,592.93 33 10,592.93 33 1.8403 0.0000 10,638.93 97 2022 6.8840 37.0571 52.1091 0.1331 7.2844 0.2512 7.5356 2.5962 0.2409 2.8370 0.0000 12,064.96 89 12,064.96 89 1.7231 0.0000 12,108.04 65 2023 5.7742 21.8527 30.8714 0.0918 4.1070 0.1201 4.2271 1.1156 0.1157 1.2313 0.0000 8,372.687 9 8,372.687 9 0.8252 0.0000 8,393.317 9 2024 3.5896 8.5207 11.2954 0.0388 1.9508 0.0370 1.9878 0.5299 0.0360 0.5658 0.0000 3,550.225 9 3,550.225 9 0.2695 0.0000 3,556.963 2 2025 1.4013 2.8191 3.7098 0.0128 0.6605 0.0120 0.6725 0.1793 0.0117 0.1910 0.0000 1,171.095 7 1,171.095 7 0.0881 0.0000 1,173.297 2 Maximum 6.8840 37.0571 52.1091 0.1331 10.2478 0.2512 10.4535 4.6031 0.2409 4.8025 0.0000 12,064.96 89 12,064.96 89 1.8403 0.0000 12,108.04 65 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 29.98 35.81 -9.18 0.00 2.51 89.96 18.09 1.54 89.54 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 4-1-2020 6-30-2020 11.0765 3.6980 2 7-1-2020 9-30-2020 11.1983 3.7386 3 10-1-2020 12-31-2020 12.6967 4.5498 4 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 14.2901 6.5730 5 4-1-2021 6-30-2021 16.0418 8.1883 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 9 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1211 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 6 7-1-2021 9-30-2021 18.5274 10.7480 7 10-1-2021 12-31-2021 18.0520 11.9844 8 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 15.7778 11.3861 9 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 15.8497 11.4091 10 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 16.0238 11.5345 11 10-1-2022 12-31-2022 11.6604 9.7416 12 1-1-2023 3-31-2023 10.0575 8.6290 13 4-1-2023 6-30-2023 9.1236 7.7649 14 7-1-2023 9-30-2023 7.6853 6.5642 15 10-1-2023 12-31-2023 5.3668 4.7075 16 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 4.8375 4.3472 17 4-1-2024 6-30-2024 2.8348 2.5732 18 7-1-2024 9-30-2024 2.8440 2.5821 19 10-1-2024 12-31-2024 2.8704 2.6085 20 1-1-2025 3-31-2025 2.7105 2.5280 21 4-1-2025 6-30-2025 1.7909 1.6692 Highest 18.5274 11.9844 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 10 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1212 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 10.6853 0.1082 8.2046 6.6100e- 003 0.4777 0.4777 0.4777 0.4777 45.6748 23.2849 68.9598 0.0879 2.8000e- 003 71.9927 Energy 0.1810 1.6117 1.1329 9.8700e- 003 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.0000 5,208.848 0 5,208.848 0 0.1889 0.0648 5,232.884 3 Mobile 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 203.2467 0.0000 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 27.2967 177.2846 204.5813 2.8117 0.0679 295.0945 Total 14.8746 28.7660 48.6004 0.1855 14.0959 0.7349 14.8308 3.7874 0.7263 4.5136 276.2183 21,071.22 47 21,347.44 30 15.7447 0.1355 21,781.43 12 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 11 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1213 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 7.9457 0.0888 5.0863 4.6000e- 004 0.0306 0.0306 0.0306 0.0306 0.0000 43.5588 43.5588 8.7200e- 003 6.5000e- 004 43.9695 Energy 0.1810 1.6117 1.1329 9.8700e- 003 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.0000 5,208.848 0 5,208.848 0 0.1889 0.0648 5,232.884 3 Mobile 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 203.2467 0.0000 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 27.2967 177.2846 204.5813 2.8117 0.0679 295.0945 Total 12.1350 28.7466 45.4821 0.1794 14.0959 0.2878 14.3837 3.7874 0.2791 4.0665 230.5435 21,091.49 86 21,322.04 21 15.6655 0.1333 21,753.40 80 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 18.42 0.07 6.42 3.31 0.00 60.84 3.01 0.00 61.57 9.91 16.54 -0.10 0.12 0.50 1.59 0.13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 12 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1214 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2020 6/1/2021 5 305 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2020 10/1/2021 5 393 3 Grading Grading 4/1/2020 9/30/2022 5 653 4 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Trenching 10/1/2020 9/1/2023 5 762 5 Building Construction (Commercial) Building Construction 1/1/2021 9/1/2023 5 696 6 Paving (Commercial)Paving 5/1/2021 6/1/2023 5 544 7 Building Construction (Apartments) Building Construction 6/1/2021 4/1/2024 5 740 8 Building Construction (For Sale)Building Construction 6/1/2021 5/30/2025 5 1044 9 Paving (For Sale)Paving 10/1/2021 4/1/2023 5 391 10 Architectural Coating (Commercial) Architectural Coating 10/1/2021 12/1/2023 5 566 11 Architectural Coating (Apartments) Architectural Coating 10/1/2021 12/1/2023 5 566 12 Architectual Coating (For Sale)Architectural Coating 12/3/2023 5/30/2025 5 390 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating (Commercial)Air Compressors 3 6.00 78 0.48 Demolition Excavators 6 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 8.00 81 0.73 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Residential Indoor: 2,353,901; Residential Outdoor: 784,634; Non-Residential Indoor: 971,985; Non-Residential Outdoor: 323,995; Striped Parking Area: 63,120 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 387.5 Acres of Paving: 23.67 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 13 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1215 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Excavators 4 8.00 158 0.38 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Trenchers 6 8.00 78 0.50 Architectural Coating (Apartments)Air Compressors 3 6.00 78 0.48 Architectual Coating (For Sale)Air Compressors 3 6.00 78 0.48 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Graders 4 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (Commercial)Cranes 2 7.00 231 0.29 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 8 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 6 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 6 8.00 367 0.48 Building Construction (Apartments)Cranes 2 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction (For Sale)Cranes 2 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction (Commercial)Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction (Apartments)Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction (For Sale)Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction (Commercial)Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction (Apartments)Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction (For Sale)Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Paving (Commercial)Pavers 4 8.00 130 0.42 Paving (For Sale)Pavers 4 8.00 130 0.42 Paving (Commercial)Paving Equipment 4 8.00 132 0.36 Paving (For Sale)Paving Equipment 4 8.00 132 0.36 Paving (Commercial)Rollers 4 8.00 80 0.38 Paving (For Sale)Rollers 4 8.00 80 0.38 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 14 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1216 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Building Construction (Commercial)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (Apartments)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (For Sale)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (Commercial)Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Building Construction (Apartments)Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Building Construction (For Sale)Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Trips and VMT 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 12 30.00 0.00 989.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 14 35.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 20 50.00 0.00 11,700.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) 14 35.00 0.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating (Commercial) 3 223.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating (Apartments) 3 223.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectual Coating (For Sale) 3 223.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction (Commercial) 17 1,114.00 351.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction (Apartments) 17 1,114.00 351.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction (For Sale) 17 1,114.00 351.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving (Commercial)12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving (For Sale)12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 15 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1217 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.2 Demolition - 2020 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 0.0691 0.0000 0.0691 0.0105 0.0000 0.0105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.6525 6.5406 4.2854 7.6500e- 003 0.3268 0.3268 0.3038 0.3038 0.0000 669.7726 669.7726 0.1891 0.0000 674.4994 Total 0.6525 6.5406 4.2854 7.6500e- 003 0.0691 0.3268 0.3959 0.0105 0.3038 0.3142 0.0000 669.7726 669.7726 0.1891 0.0000 674.4994 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Water Unpaved Roads Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 16 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1218 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.2 Demolition - 2020 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 2.7100e- 003 0.0931 0.0164 2.5000e- 004 7.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.9200e- 003 2.0300e- 003 2.8000e- 004 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 24.4540 24.4540 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 24.4848 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 0.0102 7.5400e- 003 0.0773 2.3000e- 004 0.0234 1.6000e- 004 0.0235 6.2200e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.3600e- 003 0.0000 20.7694 20.7694 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 20.7828 Total 0.0129 0.1007 0.0937 4.8000e- 004 0.0310 4.6000e- 004 0.0315 8.2500e- 003 4.3000e- 004 8.6800e- 003 0.0000 45.2234 45.2234 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 45.2676 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 0.0691 0.0000 0.0691 0.0105 0.0000 0.0105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1151 2.6708 4.8608 7.6500e- 003 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 669.7718 669.7718 0.1891 0.0000 674.4986 Total 0.1151 2.6708 4.8608 7.6500e- 003 0.0691 0.0121 0.0813 0.0105 0.0121 0.0226 0.0000 669.7718 669.7718 0.1891 0.0000 674.4986 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 17 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1219 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.2 Demolition - 2020 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 2.7100e- 003 0.0931 0.0164 2.5000e- 004 7.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.5500e- 003 1.9400e- 003 2.8000e- 004 2.2200e- 003 0.0000 24.4540 24.4540 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 24.4848 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 0.0102 7.5400e- 003 0.0773 2.3000e- 004 0.0222 1.6000e- 004 0.0223 5.9200e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0700e- 003 0.0000 20.7694 20.7694 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 20.7828 Total 0.0129 0.1007 0.0937 4.8000e- 004 0.0294 4.6000e- 004 0.0299 7.8600e- 003 4.3000e- 004 8.2900e- 003 0.0000 45.2234 45.2234 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 45.2676 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.2 Demolition - 2021 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 0.0379 0.0000 0.0379 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3418 3.3956 2.3290 4.1900e- 003 0.1676 0.1676 0.1556 0.1556 0.0000 367.2085 367.2085 0.1034 0.0000 369.7923 Total 0.3418 3.3956 2.3290 4.1900e- 003 0.0379 0.1676 0.2055 5.7400e- 003 0.1556 0.1614 0.0000 367.2085 367.2085 0.1034 0.0000 369.7923 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 18 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1220 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.2 Demolition - 2021 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 1.4000e- 003 0.0472 8.7600e- 003 1.4000e- 004 7.0100e- 003 1.4000e- 004 7.1500e- 003 1.8100e- 003 1.4000e- 004 1.9500e- 003 0.0000 13.2384 13.2384 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 13.2548 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 5.1700e- 003 3.6900e- 003 0.0386 1.2000e- 004 0.0128 9.0000e- 005 0.0129 3.4100e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.4900e- 003 0.0000 10.9913 10.9913 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.9978 Total 6.5700e- 003 0.0509 0.0474 2.6000e- 004 0.0198 2.3000e- 004 0.0200 5.2200e- 003 2.2000e- 004 5.4400e- 003 0.0000 24.2297 24.2297 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 24.2526 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 0.0379 0.0000 0.0379 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0631 1.4642 2.6648 4.1900e- 003 6.6600e- 003 6.6600e- 003 6.6600e- 003 6.6600e- 003 0.0000 367.2080 367.2080 0.1034 0.0000 369.7919 Total 0.0631 1.4642 2.6648 4.1900e- 003 0.0379 6.6600e- 003 0.0446 5.7400e- 003 6.6600e- 003 0.0124 0.0000 367.2080 367.2080 0.1034 0.0000 369.7919 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 19 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1221 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.2 Demolition - 2021 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 1.4000e- 003 0.0472 8.7600e- 003 1.4000e- 004 6.6300e- 003 1.4000e- 004 6.7800e- 003 1.7200e- 003 1.4000e- 004 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 13.2384 13.2384 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 13.2548 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 5.1700e- 003 3.6900e- 003 0.0386 1.2000e- 004 0.0121 9.0000e- 005 0.0122 3.2400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.3200e- 003 0.0000 10.9913 10.9913 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.9978 Total 6.5700e- 003 0.0509 0.0474 2.6000e- 004 0.0188 2.3000e- 004 0.0190 4.9600e- 003 2.2000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 0.0000 24.2297 24.2297 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 24.2526 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 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 3.5591 0.0000 3.5591 1.9563 0.0000 1.9563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8031 8.3562 4.2382 7.4900e- 003 0.4329 0.4329 0.3983 0.3983 0.0000 658.5844 658.5844 0.2130 0.0000 663.9094 Total 0.8031 8.3562 4.2382 7.4900e- 003 3.5591 0.4329 3.9919 1.9563 0.3983 2.3546 0.0000 658.5844 658.5844 0.2130 0.0000 663.9094 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 20 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1222 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 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 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0273 1.9000e- 004 0.0275 7.2500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.4300e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 Total 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0273 1.9000e- 004 0.0275 7.2500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.4300e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 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 3.5591 0.0000 3.5591 1.9563 0.0000 1.9563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1373 2.3959 4.5231 7.4900e- 003 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 658.5836 658.5836 0.2130 0.0000 663.9086 Total 0.1373 2.3959 4.5231 7.4900e- 003 3.5591 0.0122 3.5713 1.9563 0.0122 1.9686 0.0000 658.5836 658.5836 0.2130 0.0000 663.9086 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 21 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1223 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 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 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0259 1.9000e- 004 0.0260 6.9000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0800e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 Total 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0259 1.9000e- 004 0.0260 6.9000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0800e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 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 3.5410 0.0000 3.5410 1.9464 0.0000 1.9464 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.7621 7.9374 4.1462 7.4500e- 003 0.4007 0.4007 0.3687 0.3687 0.0000 655.3401 655.3401 0.2120 0.0000 660.6388 Total 0.7621 7.9374 4.1462 7.4500e- 003 3.5410 0.4007 3.9417 1.9464 0.3687 2.3151 0.0000 655.3401 655.3401 0.2120 0.0000 660.6388 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 22 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1224 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 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 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0271 1.8000e- 004 0.0273 7.2100e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 Total 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0271 1.8000e- 004 0.0273 7.2100e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 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 3.5410 0.0000 3.5410 1.9464 0.0000 1.9464 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1366 2.3838 4.5002 7.4500e- 003 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 655.3393 655.3393 0.2120 0.0000 660.6380 Total 0.1366 2.3838 4.5002 7.4500e- 003 3.5410 0.0122 3.5532 1.9464 0.0122 1.9586 0.0000 655.3393 655.3393 0.2120 0.0000 660.6380 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 23 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1225 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 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 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0257 1.8000e- 004 0.0259 6.8700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 Total 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0257 1.8000e- 004 0.0259 6.8700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 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 2.5835 0.0000 2.5835 1.3272 0.0000 1.3272 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3304 15.2074 8.2927 0.0172 0.6447 0.6447 0.5931 0.5931 0.0000 1,508.862 5 1,508.862 5 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.062 4 Total 1.3304 15.2074 8.2927 0.0172 2.5835 0.6447 3.2282 1.3272 0.5931 1.9204 0.0000 1,508.862 5 1,508.862 5 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.062 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 24 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1226 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.4 Grading - 2020 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 0.0150 0.5147 0.0905 1.4000e- 003 0.0816 1.6400e- 003 0.0832 0.0209 1.5700e- 003 0.0225 0.0000 135.1223 135.1223 6.8000e- 003 0.0000 135.2924 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 0.0170 0.0126 0.1289 3.8000e- 004 0.0389 2.7000e- 004 0.0392 0.0104 2.5000e- 004 0.0106 0.0000 34.6156 34.6156 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 34.6380 Total 0.0320 0.5272 0.2194 1.7800e- 003 0.1205 1.9100e- 003 0.1224 0.0313 1.8200e- 003 0.0331 0.0000 169.7379 169.7379 7.6900e- 003 0.0000 169.9304 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 2.5835 0.0000 2.5835 1.3272 0.0000 1.3272 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2844 4.9239 9.6390 0.0172 0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1,508.860 7 1,508.860 7 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.060 6 Total 0.2844 4.9239 9.6390 0.0172 2.5835 0.0281 2.6116 1.3272 0.0281 1.3553 0.0000 1,508.860 7 1,508.860 7 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.060 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 25 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1227 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.4 Grading - 2020 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 0.0150 0.5147 0.0905 1.4000e- 003 0.0771 1.6400e- 003 0.0788 0.0198 1.5700e- 003 0.0214 0.0000 135.1223 135.1223 6.8000e- 003 0.0000 135.2924 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 0.0170 0.0126 0.1289 3.8000e- 004 0.0369 2.7000e- 004 0.0372 9.8600e- 003 2.5000e- 004 0.0101 0.0000 34.6156 34.6156 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 34.6380 Total 0.0320 0.5272 0.2194 1.7800e- 003 0.1141 1.9100e- 003 0.1160 0.0297 1.8200e- 003 0.0315 0.0000 169.7379 169.7379 7.6900e- 003 0.0000 169.9304 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 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 3.3543 0.0000 3.3543 1.7509 0.0000 1.7509 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6680 18.7516 10.5487 0.0228 0.7876 0.7876 0.7245 0.7245 0.0000 1,999.282 4 1,999.282 4 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.447 6 Total 1.6680 18.7516 10.5487 0.0228 3.3543 0.7876 4.1418 1.7509 0.7245 2.4755 0.0000 1,999.282 4 1,999.282 4 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.447 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 26 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1228 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.4 Grading - 2021 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 0.0187 0.6305 0.1170 1.8300e- 003 0.0840 1.9300e- 003 0.0860 0.0218 1.8400e- 003 0.0237 0.0000 176.7782 176.7782 8.7600e- 003 0.0000 176.9973 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 0.0208 0.0149 0.1555 4.9000e- 004 0.0516 3.5000e- 004 0.0519 0.0137 3.2000e- 004 0.0140 0.0000 44.2704 44.2704 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 44.2968 Total 0.0396 0.6454 0.2725 2.3200e- 003 0.1356 2.2800e- 003 0.1379 0.0355 2.1600e- 003 0.0377 0.0000 221.0485 221.0485 9.8200e- 003 0.0000 221.2941 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 3.3543 0.0000 3.3543 1.7509 0.0000 1.7509 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3768 6.5235 12.7705 0.0228 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0000 1,999.280 0 1,999.280 0 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.445 2 Total 0.3768 6.5235 12.7705 0.0228 3.3543 0.0372 3.3915 1.7509 0.0372 1.7882 0.0000 1,999.280 0 1,999.280 0 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.445 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 27 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1229 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.4 Grading - 2021 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 0.0187 0.6305 0.1170 1.8300e- 003 0.0796 1.9300e- 003 0.0815 0.0207 1.8400e- 003 0.0226 0.0000 176.7782 176.7782 8.7600e- 003 0.0000 176.9973 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 0.0208 0.0149 0.1555 4.9000e- 004 0.0489 3.5000e- 004 0.0493 0.0131 3.2000e- 004 0.0134 0.0000 44.2704 44.2704 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 44.2968 Total 0.0396 0.6454 0.2725 2.3200e- 003 0.1285 2.2800e- 003 0.1308 0.0338 2.1600e- 003 0.0360 0.0000 221.0485 221.0485 9.8200e- 003 0.0000 221.2941 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 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 2.5594 0.0000 2.5594 1.3140 0.0000 1.3140 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0713 11.7119 7.3059 0.0170 0.4841 0.4841 0.4454 0.4454 0.0000 1,494.814 3 1,494.814 3 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.900 6 Total 1.0713 11.7119 7.3059 0.0170 2.5594 0.4841 3.0435 1.3140 0.4454 1.7594 0.0000 1,494.814 3 1,494.814 3 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.900 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 28 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1230 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.4 Grading - 2022 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 0.0132 0.4339 0.0852 1.3500e- 003 0.0815 1.2300e- 003 0.0827 0.0209 1.1800e- 003 0.0221 0.0000 130.3324 130.3324 6.3500e- 003 0.0000 130.4912 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 0.0145 9.9300e- 003 0.1064 3.5000e- 004 0.0386 2.5000e- 004 0.0388 0.0103 2.3000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 31.8702 31.8702 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 31.8878 Total 0.0277 0.4438 0.1916 1.7000e- 003 0.1201 1.4800e- 003 0.1215 0.0311 1.4100e- 003 0.0326 0.0000 162.2025 162.2025 7.0600e- 003 0.0000 162.3790 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 2.5594 0.0000 2.5594 1.3140 0.0000 1.3140 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2815 4.8739 9.5411 0.0170 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.0000 1,494.812 5 1,494.812 5 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.898 8 Total 0.2815 4.8739 9.5411 0.0170 2.5594 0.0278 2.5872 1.3140 0.0278 1.3418 0.0000 1,494.812 5 1,494.812 5 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.898 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 29 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1231 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.4 Grading - 2022 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 0.0132 0.4339 0.0852 1.3500e- 003 0.0771 1.2300e- 003 0.0783 0.0198 1.1800e- 003 0.0210 0.0000 130.3324 130.3324 6.3500e- 003 0.0000 130.4912 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 0.0145 9.9300e- 003 0.1064 3.5000e- 004 0.0366 2.5000e- 004 0.0368 9.7600e- 003 2.3000e- 004 0.0100 0.0000 31.8702 31.8702 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 31.8878 Total 0.0277 0.4438 0.1916 1.7000e- 003 0.1136 1.4800e- 003 0.1151 0.0296 1.4100e- 003 0.0310 0.0000 162.2025 162.2025 7.0600e- 003 0.0000 162.3790 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2020 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 0.1436 1.3523 1.2578 1.7600e- 003 0.0896 0.0896 0.0824 0.0824 0.0000 155.0547 155.0547 0.0502 0.0000 156.3084 Total 0.1436 1.3523 1.2578 1.7600e- 003 0.0896 0.0896 0.0824 0.0824 0.0000 155.0547 155.0547 0.0502 0.0000 156.3084 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 30 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1232 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2020 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 Worker 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 Total 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 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 0.0326 0.7730 1.3341 1.7600e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 0.0000 155.0545 155.0545 0.0502 0.0000 156.3082 Total 0.0326 0.7730 1.3341 1.7600e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 0.0000 155.0545 155.0545 0.0502 0.0000 156.3082 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 31 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1233 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2020 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 Worker 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 Total 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2021 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 0.5186 4.8790 4.9424 6.9800e- 003 0.3136 0.3136 0.2885 0.2885 0.0000 613.3467 613.3467 0.1984 0.0000 618.3059 Total 0.5186 4.8790 4.9424 6.9800e- 003 0.3136 0.3136 0.2885 0.2885 0.0000 613.3467 613.3467 0.1984 0.0000 618.3059 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 32 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1234 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2021 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 Worker 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 Total 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 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 0.1291 3.0569 5.2757 6.9800e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 613.3460 613.3460 0.1984 0.0000 618.3052 Total 0.1291 3.0569 5.2757 6.9800e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 613.3460 613.3460 0.1984 0.0000 618.3052 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 33 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1235 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2021 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 Worker 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 Total 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2022 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 0.4763 4.4458 4.8975 6.9500e- 003 0.2793 0.2793 0.2570 0.2570 0.0000 611.0913 611.0913 0.1976 0.0000 616.0323 Total 0.4763 4.4458 4.8975 6.9500e- 003 0.2793 0.2793 0.2570 0.2570 0.0000 611.0913 611.0913 0.1976 0.0000 616.0323 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 34 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1236 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2022 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 Worker 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 Total 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 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 0.1286 3.0452 5.2555 6.9500e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 611.0906 611.0906 0.1976 0.0000 616.0316 Total 0.1286 3.0452 5.2555 6.9500e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 611.0906 611.0906 0.1976 0.0000 616.0316 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 35 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1237 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2022 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 Worker 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 Total 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2023 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 0.3021 2.7859 3.2914 4.6800e- 003 0.1714 0.1714 0.1577 0.1577 0.0000 411.5669 411.5669 0.1331 0.0000 414.8946 Total 0.3021 2.7859 3.2914 4.6800e- 003 0.1714 0.1714 0.1577 0.1577 0.0000 411.5669 411.5669 0.1331 0.0000 414.8946 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 36 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1238 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2023 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 Worker 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 Total 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 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 0.0865 2.0497 3.5374 4.6800e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 0.0000 411.5664 411.5664 0.1331 0.0000 414.8941 Total 0.0865 2.0497 3.5374 4.6800e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 0.0000 411.5664 411.5664 0.1331 0.0000 414.8941 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 37 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1239 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2023 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 Worker 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 Total 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2021 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 0.4566 4.3529 4.1018 6.6900e- 003 0.2405 0.2405 0.2256 0.2256 0.0000 580.0105 580.0105 0.1427 0.0000 583.5770 Total 0.4566 4.3529 4.1018 6.6900e- 003 0.2405 0.2405 0.2256 0.2256 0.0000 580.0105 580.0105 0.1427 0.0000 583.5770 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 38 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1240 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2021 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 0.1418 4.8995 1.0378 0.0125 0.3008 0.0102 0.3111 0.0870 9.7700e- 003 0.0968 0.0000 1,199.969 5 1,199.969 5 0.0659 0.0000 1,201.617 2 Worker 0.4642 0.3309 3.4650 0.0109 1.1495 7.7200e- 003 1.1572 0.3058 7.1200e- 003 0.3129 0.0000 986.3433 986.3433 0.0236 0.0000 986.9325 Total 0.6060 5.2304 4.5027 0.0234 1.4503 0.0179 1.4682 0.3928 0.0169 0.4097 0.0000 2,186.312 8 2,186.312 8 0.0895 0.0000 2,188.549 7 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 0.1673 2.6114 4.4987 6.6900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 580.0098 580.0098 0.1427 0.0000 583.5763 Total 0.1673 2.6114 4.4987 6.6900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 580.0098 580.0098 0.1427 0.0000 583.5763 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 39 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1241 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2021 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 0.1418 4.8995 1.0378 0.0125 0.2881 0.0102 0.2984 0.0839 9.7700e- 003 0.0937 0.0000 1,199.969 5 1,199.969 5 0.0659 0.0000 1,201.617 2 Worker 0.4642 0.3309 3.4650 0.0109 1.0899 7.7200e- 003 1.0976 0.2912 7.1200e- 003 0.2983 0.0000 986.3433 986.3433 0.0236 0.0000 986.9325 Total 0.6060 5.2304 4.5027 0.0234 1.3780 0.0179 1.3960 0.3751 0.0169 0.3920 0.0000 2,186.312 8 2,186.312 8 0.0895 0.0000 2,188.549 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2022 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 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Total 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 40 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1242 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2022 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 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2997 8.8000e- 003 0.3085 0.0867 8.4200e- 003 0.0951 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.1451 7.5000e- 003 1.1525 0.3046 6.9100e- 003 0.3115 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.4447 0.0163 1.4610 0.3913 0.0153 0.4066 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 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 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Total 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 41 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1243 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2022 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 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2871 8.8000e- 003 0.2959 0.0836 8.4200e- 003 0.0920 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.0857 7.5000e- 003 1.0932 0.2900 6.9100e- 003 0.2969 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.3727 0.0163 1.3890 0.3736 0.0153 0.3890 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2023 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 0.2530 2.3931 2.6959 4.4900e- 003 0.1176 0.1176 0.1104 0.1104 0.0000 389.1890 389.1890 0.0947 0.0000 391.5566 Total 0.2530 2.3931 2.6959 4.4900e- 003 0.1176 0.1176 0.1104 0.1104 0.0000 389.1890 389.1890 0.0947 0.0000 391.5566 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 42 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1244 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2023 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 0.0651 2.4154 0.5697 8.0700e- 003 0.2017 2.5600e- 003 0.2043 0.0584 2.4500e- 003 0.0608 0.0000 774.0438 774.0438 0.0337 0.0000 774.8870 Worker 0.2691 0.1781 1.9475 6.7700e- 003 0.7707 4.9300e- 003 0.7756 0.2050 4.5400e- 003 0.2096 0.0000 612.8680 612.8680 0.0127 0.0000 613.1844 Total 0.3342 2.5935 2.5172 0.0148 0.9724 7.4900e- 003 0.9799 0.2634 6.9900e- 003 0.2704 0.0000 1,386.911 9 1,386.911 9 0.0464 0.0000 1,388.071 4 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 0.1080 1.7432 3.0128 4.4900e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 389.1885 389.1885 0.0947 0.0000 391.5561 Total 0.1080 1.7432 3.0128 4.4900e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 389.1885 389.1885 0.0947 0.0000 391.5561 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 43 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1245 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2023 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 0.0651 2.4154 0.5697 8.0700e- 003 0.1932 2.5600e- 003 0.1958 0.0563 2.4500e- 003 0.0587 0.0000 774.0438 774.0438 0.0337 0.0000 774.8870 Worker 0.2691 0.1781 1.9475 6.7700e- 003 0.7308 4.9300e- 003 0.7357 0.1952 4.5400e- 003 0.1998 0.0000 612.8680 612.8680 0.0127 0.0000 613.1844 Total 0.3342 2.5935 2.5172 0.0148 0.9240 7.4900e- 003 0.9315 0.2515 6.9900e- 003 0.2585 0.0000 1,386.911 9 1,386.911 9 0.0464 0.0000 1,388.071 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2021 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 0.2197 2.2608 2.5643 3.9900e- 003 0.1186 0.1186 0.1091 0.1091 0.0000 350.4109 350.4109 0.1133 0.0000 353.2442 Paving 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2274 2.2608 2.5643 3.9900e- 003 0.1186 0.1186 0.1091 0.1091 0.0000 350.4109 350.4109 0.1133 0.0000 353.2442 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 44 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1246 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2021 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 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0208 1.4000e- 004 0.0209 5.5200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.6500e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 Total 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0208 1.4000e- 004 0.0209 5.5200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.6500e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 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 0.1081 1.8053 2.8309 3.9900e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0351 0.0351 0.0000 350.4105 350.4105 0.1133 0.0000 353.2437 Paving 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1158 1.8053 2.8309 3.9900e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0351 0.0351 0.0000 350.4105 350.4105 0.1133 0.0000 353.2437 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 45 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1247 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2021 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 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0197 1.4000e- 004 0.0198 5.2600e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 Total 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0197 1.4000e- 004 0.0198 5.2600e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2022 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 0.2867 2.8925 3.7909 5.9300e- 003 0.1477 0.1477 0.1358 0.1358 0.0000 520.7165 520.7165 0.1684 0.0000 524.9268 Paving 0.0115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2982 2.8925 3.7909 5.9300e- 003 0.1477 0.1477 0.1358 0.1358 0.0000 520.7165 520.7165 0.1684 0.0000 524.9268 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 46 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1248 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2022 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 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0308 2.0000e- 004 0.0310 8.2000e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.3900e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 Total 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0308 2.0000e- 004 0.0310 8.2000e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.3900e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 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 0.1534 2.5768 4.2083 5.9300e- 003 0.0503 0.0503 0.0468 0.0468 0.0000 520.7159 520.7159 0.1684 0.0000 524.9261 Paving 0.0115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1648 2.5768 4.2083 5.9300e- 003 0.0503 0.0503 0.0468 0.0468 0.0000 520.7159 520.7159 0.1684 0.0000 524.9261 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 47 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1249 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2022 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 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0292 2.0000e- 004 0.0294 7.8100e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 Total 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0292 2.0000e- 004 0.0294 7.8100e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2023 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 0.1126 1.1109 1.5897 2.4900e- 003 0.0556 0.0556 0.0512 0.0512 0.0000 218.2928 218.2928 0.0706 0.0000 220.0579 Paving 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1174 1.1109 1.5897 2.4900e- 003 0.0556 0.0556 0.0512 0.0512 0.0000 218.2928 218.2928 0.0706 0.0000 220.0579 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 48 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1250 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2023 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 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0129 8.0000e- 005 0.0130 3.4400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.5200e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 Total 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0129 8.0000e- 005 0.0130 3.4400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.5200e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 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 0.0627 1.0509 1.7666 2.4900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0183 0.0183 0.0000 218.2926 218.2926 0.0706 0.0000 220.0576 Paving 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0675 1.0509 1.7666 2.4900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0183 0.0183 0.0000 218.2926 218.2926 0.0706 0.0000 220.0576 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 49 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1251 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2023 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 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0123 8.0000e- 005 0.0123 3.2700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.3500e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 Total 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0123 8.0000e- 005 0.0123 3.2700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.3500e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2021 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 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Total 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 50 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1252 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2021 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 0.0837 2.8909 0.6123 7.3900e- 003 0.1775 6.0300e- 003 0.1835 0.0514 5.7700e- 003 0.0571 0.0000 708.0280 708.0280 0.0389 0.0000 709.0002 Worker 0.2739 0.1952 2.0445 6.4400e- 003 0.6782 4.5600e- 003 0.6828 0.1804 4.2000e- 003 0.1846 0.0000 581.9804 581.9804 0.0139 0.0000 582.3280 Total 0.3576 3.0861 2.6568 0.0138 0.8557 0.0106 0.8663 0.2318 9.9700e- 003 0.2417 0.0000 1,290.008 3 1,290.008 3 0.0528 0.0000 1,291.328 2 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 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Total 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 51 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1253 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2021 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 0.0837 2.8909 0.6123 7.3900e- 003 0.1700 6.0300e- 003 0.1760 0.0495 5.7700e- 003 0.0553 0.0000 708.0280 708.0280 0.0389 0.0000 709.0002 Worker 0.2739 0.1952 2.0445 6.4400e- 003 0.6431 4.5600e- 003 0.6476 0.1718 4.2000e- 003 0.1760 0.0000 581.9804 581.9804 0.0139 0.0000 582.3280 Total 0.3576 3.0861 2.6568 0.0138 0.8131 0.0106 0.8237 0.2213 9.9700e- 003 0.2313 0.0000 1,290.008 3 1,290.008 3 0.0528 0.0000 1,291.328 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2022 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 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Total 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 52 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1254 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2022 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 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2997 8.8000e- 003 0.3085 0.0867 8.4200e- 003 0.0951 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.1451 7.5000e- 003 1.1525 0.3046 6.9100e- 003 0.3115 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.4447 0.0163 1.4610 0.3913 0.0153 0.4066 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 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 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Total 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 53 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1255 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2022 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 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2871 8.8000e- 003 0.2959 0.0836 8.4200e- 003 0.0920 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.0857 7.5000e- 003 1.0932 0.2900 6.9100e- 003 0.2969 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.3727 0.0163 1.3890 0.3736 0.0153 0.3890 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2023 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 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Total 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 54 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1256 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2023 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 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2997 3.8000e- 003 0.3035 0.0867 3.6300e- 003 0.0903 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.1451 7.3200e- 003 1.1524 0.3046 6.7500e- 003 0.3114 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.4448 0.0111 1.4559 0.3913 0.0104 0.4017 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 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 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Total 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 55 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1257 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2023 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 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2871 3.8000e- 003 0.2909 0.0836 3.6300e- 003 0.0872 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.0857 7.3200e- 003 1.0930 0.2900 6.7500e- 003 0.2968 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.3727 0.0111 1.3839 0.3736 0.0104 0.3840 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2024 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 0.0893 0.8417 1.0121 1.6900e- 003 0.0389 0.0389 0.0365 0.0365 0.0000 146.8091 146.8091 0.0356 0.0000 147.6979 Total 0.0893 0.8417 1.0121 1.6900e- 003 0.0389 0.0389 0.0365 0.0365 0.0000 146.8091 146.8091 0.0356 0.0000 147.6979 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 56 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1258 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2024 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 0.0238 0.9044 0.2058 3.0200e- 003 0.0761 9.5000e- 004 0.0770 0.0220 9.1000e- 004 0.0229 0.0000 289.9033 289.9033 0.0126 0.0000 290.2174 Worker 0.0950 0.0606 0.6780 2.4500e- 003 0.2907 1.8200e- 003 0.2925 0.0773 1.6800e- 003 0.0790 0.0000 221.9775 221.9775 4.2900e- 003 0.0000 222.0847 Total 0.1188 0.9649 0.8838 5.4700e- 003 0.3668 2.7700e- 003 0.3695 0.0993 2.5900e- 003 0.1019 0.0000 511.8808 511.8808 0.0169 0.0000 512.3021 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 0.0401 0.6561 1.1358 1.6900e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 146.8090 146.8090 0.0356 0.0000 147.6977 Total 0.0401 0.6561 1.1358 1.6900e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 146.8090 146.8090 0.0356 0.0000 147.6977 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 57 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1259 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2024 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 0.0238 0.9044 0.2058 3.0200e- 003 0.0729 9.5000e- 004 0.0738 0.0212 9.1000e- 004 0.0221 0.0000 289.9033 289.9033 0.0126 0.0000 290.2174 Worker 0.0950 0.0606 0.6780 2.4500e- 003 0.2756 1.8200e- 003 0.2774 0.0736 1.6800e- 003 0.0753 0.0000 221.9775 221.9775 4.2900e- 003 0.0000 222.0847 Total 0.1188 0.9649 0.8838 5.4700e- 003 0.3485 2.7700e- 003 0.3512 0.0948 2.5900e- 003 0.0974 0.0000 511.8808 511.8808 0.0169 0.0000 512.3021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2021 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 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Total 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 58 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1260 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2021 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 0.0837 2.8909 0.6123 7.3900e- 003 0.1775 6.0300e- 003 0.1835 0.0514 5.7700e- 003 0.0571 0.0000 708.0280 708.0280 0.0389 0.0000 709.0002 Worker 0.2739 0.1952 2.0445 6.4400e- 003 0.6782 4.5600e- 003 0.6828 0.1804 4.2000e- 003 0.1846 0.0000 581.9804 581.9804 0.0139 0.0000 582.3280 Total 0.3576 3.0861 2.6568 0.0138 0.8557 0.0106 0.8663 0.2318 9.9700e- 003 0.2417 0.0000 1,290.008 3 1,290.008 3 0.0528 0.0000 1,291.328 2 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 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Total 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Mitigated Construction On-Site Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 59 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1261 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2022 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 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Total 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Unmitigated Construction On-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 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 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2997 8.8000e- 003 0.3085 0.0867 8.4200e- 003 0.0951 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.1451 7.5000e- 003 1.1525 0.3046 6.9100e- 003 0.3115 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.4447 0.0163 1.4610 0.3913 0.0153 0.4066 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 60 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1262 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2022 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 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Total 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Mitigated Construction On-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 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 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2871 8.8000e- 003 0.2959 0.0836 8.4200e- 003 0.0920 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.0857 7.5000e- 003 1.0932 0.2900 6.9100e- 003 0.2969 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.3727 0.0163 1.3890 0.3736 0.0153 0.3890 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 61 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1263 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2023 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 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Total 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Unmitigated Construction On-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 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 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2997 3.8000e- 003 0.3035 0.0867 3.6300e- 003 0.0903 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.1451 7.3200e- 003 1.1524 0.3046 6.7500e- 003 0.3114 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.4448 0.0111 1.4559 0.3913 0.0104 0.4017 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 62 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1264 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2023 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 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Total 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Mitigated Construction On-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 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 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2871 3.8000e- 003 0.2909 0.0836 3.6300e- 003 0.0872 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.0857 7.3200e- 003 1.0930 0.2900 6.7500e- 003 0.2968 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.3727 0.0111 1.3839 0.3736 0.0104 0.3840 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 63 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1265 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2024 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 0.3547 3.3414 4.0178 6.7300e- 003 0.1545 0.1545 0.1449 0.1449 0.0000 582.7878 582.7878 0.1411 0.0000 586.3159 Total 0.3547 3.3414 4.0178 6.7300e- 003 0.1545 0.1545 0.1449 0.1449 0.0000 582.7878 582.7878 0.1411 0.0000 586.3159 Unmitigated Construction On-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 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 0.0946 3.5900 0.8168 0.0120 0.3020 3.7800e- 003 0.3058 0.0874 3.6200e- 003 0.0910 0.0000 1,150.828 4 1,150.828 4 0.0499 0.0000 1,152.075 1 Worker 0.3769 0.2404 2.6914 9.7400e- 003 1.1539 7.2300e- 003 1.1611 0.3070 6.6500e- 003 0.3136 0.0000 881.1832 881.1832 0.0170 0.0000 881.6090 Total 0.4716 3.8303 3.5082 0.0217 1.4559 0.0110 1.4669 0.3943 0.0103 0.4046 0.0000 2,032.011 6 2,032.011 6 0.0669 0.0000 2,033.684 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 64 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1266 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2024 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 0.1592 2.6047 4.5087 6.7300e- 003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 582.7871 582.7871 0.1411 0.0000 586.3152 Total 0.1592 2.6047 4.5087 6.7300e- 003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 582.7871 582.7871 0.1411 0.0000 586.3152 Mitigated Construction On-Site Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2025 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 0.1358 1.2743 1.6480 2.7700e- 003 0.0548 0.0548 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 240.3091 240.3091 0.0579 0.0000 241.7569 Total 0.1358 1.2743 1.6480 2.7700e- 003 0.0548 0.0548 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 240.3091 240.3091 0.0579 0.0000 241.7569 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 65 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1267 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2025 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 0.0380 1.4679 0.3247 4.9100e- 003 0.1245 1.5400e- 003 0.1260 0.0360 1.4700e- 003 0.0375 0.0000 471.2741 471.2741 0.0203 0.0000 471.7807 Worker 0.1462 0.0899 1.0252 3.8500e- 003 0.4756 2.9300e- 003 0.4786 0.1265 2.7000e- 003 0.1292 0.0000 348.4064 348.4064 6.3500e- 003 0.0000 348.5652 Total 0.1842 1.5578 1.3499 8.7600e- 003 0.6001 4.4700e- 003 0.6046 0.1625 4.1700e- 003 0.1667 0.0000 819.6804 819.6804 0.0266 0.0000 820.3459 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 0.0648 1.0716 1.8579 2.7700e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 0.0000 240.3088 240.3088 0.0579 0.0000 241.7566 Total 0.0648 1.0716 1.8579 2.7700e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 0.0000 240.3088 240.3088 0.0579 0.0000 241.7566 Mitigated Construction On-Site Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 66 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1268 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 67 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1269 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 68 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1270 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 69 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1271 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 Unmitigated 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 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 Apartments Mid Rise 2,229.00 1,917.00 1758.00 4,889,769 4,889,769 Condo/Townhouse 1,472.00 1,134.00 968.00 3,121,929 3,121,929 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hotel 2,282.40 1,965.60 1428.00 4,018,516 4,018,516 Movie Theater (No Matinee)1,990.53 2,531.64 2088.45 3,920,061 3,920,061 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quality Restaurant 2,293.73 2,406.18 1840.08 2,662,925 2,662,925 Single Family Housing 1,785.60 1,783.80 1551.60 4,046,234 4,046,234 Strip Mall 9,143.95 9,038.60 4392.45 13,013,455 13,013,455 Strip Mall 1,424.76 1,408.34 684.41 2,027,678 2,027,678 Total 22,621.96 22,185.16 14,710.99 37,700,567 37,700,567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 70 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1272 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Movie Theater (No Matinee)9.50 7.30 7.30 1.80 79.20 19.00 66 17 17 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Condo/Townhouse 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Hotel 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Movie Theater (No Matinee)0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Parking Lot 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Quality Restaurant 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Single Family Housing 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Strip Mall 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 71 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1273 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior Use only Natural Gas Hearths Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 7.0 Water Detail Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subreport1', located at: subAreaDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subreport1', located at: subAreaDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subreport1', located at: subAreaDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Exceed Title 24 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 72 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1274 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Apply Water Conservation Strategy Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subWaterDetail', located at: subWaterDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subWaterDetail', located at: subWaterDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subWaterDetail', located at: subWaterDetail. Please check the log files for more information. 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Unmitigated 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 73 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1275 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 138 28.0128 1.6555 0.0000 69.4004 Condo/Townhous e 92 18.6752 1.1037 0.0000 46.2669 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hotel 131.4 26.6730 1.5763 0.0000 66.0813 Movie Theater (No Matinee) 137.77 27.9661 1.6528 0.0000 69.2847 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Quality Restaurant 22.06 4.4780 0.2646 0.0000 11.0940 Single Family Housing 216.3 43.9070 2.5948 0.0000 108.7776 Strip Mall 263.73 53.5348 3.1638 0.0000 132.6302 Total 203.2467 12.0116 0.0000 503.5352 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 74 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1276 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 138 28.0128 1.6555 0.0000 69.4004 Condo/Townhous e 92 18.6752 1.1037 0.0000 46.2669 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hotel 131.4 26.6730 1.5763 0.0000 66.0813 Movie Theater (No Matinee) 137.77 27.9661 1.6528 0.0000 69.2847 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Quality Restaurant 22.06 4.4780 0.2646 0.0000 11.0940 Single Family Housing 216.3 43.9070 2.5948 0.0000 108.7776 Strip Mall 263.73 53.5348 3.1638 0.0000 132.6302 Total 203.2467 12.0116 0.0000 503.5352 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 75 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1277 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 11.0 Vegetation 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: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 76 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 5.2 Packet Pg. 1278 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log Start date and time 07/31/18 11:42:11 AERSCREEN 16216 At Dublin Construction At Dublin Construction ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- ---------------- Emission Rate: 0.140E-02 g/s 0.111E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 1217.00 meters 3992.78 feet Area Source Width: 265.00 meters 869.42 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 59583 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Page 1 5.2 Packet Pg. 1279 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION OFF AERSCREEN output file: Page 2 5.2 Packet Pg. 1280 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log atdublinconstruction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 07/31/18 11:43:47 ******************************************** Page 3 5.2 Packet Pg. 1281 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 4 5.2 Packet Pg. 1282 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 Page 5 5.2 Packet Pg. 1283 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 Page 6 5.2 Packet Pg. 1284 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 7 5.2 Packet Pg. 1285 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 07/31/18 11:44:28 REFINE started 07/31/18 11:44:28 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 Page 8 5.2 Packet Pg. 1286 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction.log ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 07/31/18 11:44:33 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 07/31/18 11:44:33 Page 9 5.2 Packet Pg. 1287 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.24559E+00 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24872E+00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25185E+00 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25488E+00 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25773E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26050E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26317E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26568E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26814E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27052E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27277E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27766E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27995E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28217E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28432E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28642E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28846E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29043E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29234E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29421E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1 5.2 Packet Pg. 1288 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.29604E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29784E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29956E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30124E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30287E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.30338E+00 608.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27749E+00 625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23622E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21558E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20010E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18760E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17705E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16776E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15949E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15212E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14543E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13645E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13115E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12624E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12160E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11732E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 2 5.2 Packet Pg. 1289 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.11322E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10940E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10583E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10237E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99142E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96119E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93207E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90448E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87852E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85405E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83045E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80786E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78647E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76620E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74684E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72813E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71003E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69279E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67636E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66067E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64568E-01 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 3 5.2 Packet Pg. 1290 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.63135E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61726E-01 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60374E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59077E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57833E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56639E-01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55491E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54387E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53325E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52293E-01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51273E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50290E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49341E-01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48426E-01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47542E-01 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46688E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45862E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45063E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44290E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43542E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42817E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 4 5.2 Packet Pg. 1291 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.42105E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41409E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40734E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40079E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39443E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38826E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38226E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37644E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37077E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36527E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35991E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35469E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34961E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34466E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33981E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33508E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33046E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32588E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32141E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31705E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31279E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 5 5.2 Packet Pg. 1292 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.30864E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30458E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30063E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29676E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29298E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28929E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28569E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28216E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27871E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27534E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27204E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26881E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26565E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26256E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25953E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25656E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25366E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25081E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24803E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24529E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24261E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 6 5.2 Packet Pg. 1293 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.23995E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23733E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23477E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23226E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22979E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22737E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22500E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22267E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22039E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21814E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21594E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21377E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21164E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20954E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20747E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20544E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20344E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20148E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19955E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19765E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19579E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 7 5.2 Packet Pg. 1294 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.19395E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19215E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19038E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18863E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18692E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18523E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18357E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18193E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18032E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17874E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17718E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17564E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17413E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17264E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17117E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16973E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16831E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16690E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16552E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16416E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16280E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 8 5.2 Packet Pg. 1295 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.16146E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16014E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15884E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15756E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15630E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15505E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15382E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15261E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15142E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15024E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14907E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14793E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14680E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14568E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14458E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14349E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14242E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14136E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14032E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13929E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13827E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 9 5.2 Packet Pg. 1296 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.13727E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13628E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13530E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13433E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13338E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13244E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13151E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13059E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12968E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12878E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12789E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12702E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12616E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12530E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 10 5.2 Packet Pg. 1297 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log Start date and time 07/31/18 11:47:33 AERSCREEN 16216 At Dublin Operation ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- ---------------- Emission Rate: 0.828E-02 g/s 0.657E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 1217.00 meters 3992.78 feet Area Source Width: 265.00 meters 869.42 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 59583 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet Page 1 5.2 Packet Pg. 1298 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION OFF AERSCREEN output file: atdublinoperation.out Page 2 5.2 Packet Pg. 1299 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 07/31/18 11:48:39 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Page 3 5.2 Packet Pg. 1300 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page 4 5.2 Packet Pg. 1301 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 Page 5 5.2 Packet Pg. 1302 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 6 5.2 Packet Pg. 1303 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 7 5.2 Packet Pg. 1304 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 07/31/18 11:49:22 REFINE started 07/31/18 11:49:22 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 8 5.2 Packet Pg. 1305 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation.log *** NONE *** REFINE ended 07/31/18 11:49:27 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 07/31/18 11:49:27 Page 9 5.2 Packet Pg. 1306 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.14543E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14728E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14914E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15093E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15261E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15425E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15584E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15733E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15878E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16019E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16152E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16442E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16577E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16709E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16836E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16961E+01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17081E+01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17198E+01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17311E+01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17422E+01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1 5.2 Packet Pg. 1307 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.17530E+01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17637E+01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17739E+01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17838E+01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17934E+01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.17965E+01 608.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16432E+01 625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13988E+01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12766E+01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11849E+01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11109E+01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10484E+01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99338E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94445E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90077E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86115E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80798E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77660E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74755E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72004E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69469E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 2 5.2 Packet Pg. 1308 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.67042E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64784E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62669E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60620E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58707E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56917E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55193E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53559E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52022E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50573E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49176E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47838E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46571E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45371E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44225E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43117E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42045E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41024E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40051E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39122E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38235E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 3 5.2 Packet Pg. 1309 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.37386E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36552E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35751E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34983E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34246E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33539E+00 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32859E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32206E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31577E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30966E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30362E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29779E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29218E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28676E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28152E+00 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27646E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27158E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26684E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26227E+00 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25784E+00 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25354E+00 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 4 5.2 Packet Pg. 1310 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.24933E+00 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24521E+00 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24121E+00 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23733E+00 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23357E+00 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22991E+00 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22636E+00 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22291E+00 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21956E+00 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21630E+00 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21312E+00 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21003E+00 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20703E+00 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20410E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20122E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19842E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19569E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19297E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19032E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18774E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18522E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 5 5.2 Packet Pg. 1311 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.18276E+00 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18036E+00 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17802E+00 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17573E+00 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17349E+00 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17131E+00 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16917E+00 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16708E+00 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16504E+00 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16304E+00 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16109E+00 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15918E+00 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15731E+00 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15548E+00 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15368E+00 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15193E+00 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15021E+00 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14852E+00 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14687E+00 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14525E+00 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14366E+00 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 6 5.2 Packet Pg. 1312 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.14209E+00 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14054E+00 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13902E+00 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13753E+00 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13607E+00 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13464E+00 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13323E+00 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13186E+00 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13050E+00 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12917E+00 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12787E+00 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12659E+00 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12532E+00 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12408E+00 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12285E+00 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12165E+00 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12047E+00 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11930E+00 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11816E+00 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11704E+00 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11594E+00 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 7 5.2 Packet Pg. 1313 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.11485E+00 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11378E+00 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11273E+00 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11170E+00 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11068E+00 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10968E+00 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10870E+00 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10773E+00 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10678E+00 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10584E+00 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10492E+00 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10401E+00 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10311E+00 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10223E+00 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10136E+00 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10051E+00 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99663E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98833E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98015E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97207E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96403E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 8 5.2 Packet Pg. 1314 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.95610E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94829E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94059E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93300E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92551E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91813E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91086E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90369E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89661E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88963E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88275E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87596E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86927E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86266E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85614E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84971E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84336E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83710E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83092E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82481E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81879E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 9 5.2 Packet Pg. 1315 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.81284E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80697E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80118E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79546E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78980E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78422E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77871E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77327E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76789E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76258E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75734E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75215E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74703E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74198E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 10 5.2 Packet Pg. 1316 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) EXHIBIT B 5.2 Packet Pg. 1317 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Scott Cashen, M.S.—Independent Biological Resources Consultant 3264 Hudson Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 1 August 15, 2018 Ms. Nirit Lotan Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the At Dublin Project Dear Ms. Lotan: This letter contains my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared by the City of Dublin (“City”) for the At Dublin Project (“Project”). Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS Development Company, is proposing to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate a mixed-use development that would allow up to 454,500 square feet of commercial uses and up to 680 residential units on 76.2 acres of undeveloped 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. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1318 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Applicant’s biological resources consultant, WRA, visited the Project site three times. WRA first visited the Project site on December 7, 2017.1 During that site visit: “[t]he Project Area was traversed on foot for the survey, which sought to determine (1) plant communities present within the Project Area, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present.”2 WRA then visited the Project site on February 22 and March 19, 2018, to conduct a delineation of Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State.3 According to WRA’s Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”): The site visits conducted for the wetland delineation and the burrowing owl survey do not constitute a protocol-level survey and are not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species… For species with a moderate or high potential to occur within the Project Area, but which have not been observed on the site, the site assessment conducted for this report may not be sufficient to determine presence or absence of a species to the specifications of regulatory agencies. In these cases, a species may be assumed to be present for the purposes of the City of Dublin’s environmental review under CEQA, but further protocol-level special-status species surveys may ultimately be necessary for the Zeiss Group [sic] to obtain permits or approvals from other regulatory agencies.4 Therefore, based on the information provided in the BRA, the following species are assumed to be present on the Project site: San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and loggerhead shrike. In addition, Congdon’s tarplant is known to occur on the Project site.5 WRA conducted “protocol-level” rare plant surveys during the December 7 and March 19 site visits.6 However, those surveys were conducted outside of the blooming period associated with San Joaquin spearscale (Apr-Oct) and saline clover (Apr-Jun),7 and thus, they do not constitute the protocol-level surveys needed to provide reliable information on the presence (or absence) of either species. WRA did not conduct protocol-level surveys for burrowing owls,8 nor did it conduct focused surveys for the white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike (there are no adopted survey protocols for these two species).9 Data from protocol-level (or focused) surveys are required to fully assess existing conditions, 1 BRA, p. 9. 2 Ibid. 3 BRA, p. 1. 4 BRA, p. 11. 5 BRA, p. 18. 6 BRA, p. 1. 7 BRA, Appendix B. 8 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Appendix D. 9 See methods section in BRA, p. 9. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1319 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3 analyze Project impacts, and formulate appropriate mitigation. Specifically, data from protocol- level surveys provide information on the presence, distribution, and abundance of sensitive biological resources at a project site. These data are essential to a proper understanding of the magnitude and severity of a project’s impacts to specific resources (e.g., various species), and thus, the feasibility of various mitigation options (e.g., impact avoidance). Deferring the surveys until after completion of the CEQA review process—as proposed in the DEIR—precludes proper understanding of the magnitude and severity of the Project’s impacts. It also effectively robs the public, resource agencies, and scientific community from being able to submit informed comments pertaining to Project impacts and mitigation, and from having those comments vetted during the environmental review process. These sentiments are reflected in the survey protocols prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), California Burrowing Owl Consortium, and California Native Plant Society.10 Without protocol-level survey data, the City can only speculate on the presence of sensitive biological resources at the Project site. Similarly, without abundance data, the City has no ability to assess the magnitude and severity of Project impacts to various resources, and subsequently, the ability of the proposed mitigation to reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. This is important because, under CEQA, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts. Because the City does not have the data needed to assess the level of impacts, it has no basis for its conclusion that all potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to less-than- significant levels by the measures proposed in the DEIR. For example, the City has concluded that development of a burrowing owl mitigation plan would effectively mitigate significant impacts to the species—regardless of how many burrowing owls occur at the site, and irrespective of the importance of those owls in maintaining the local population. This conclusion is unrealistic, and as discussed further below, contradicts existing evidence. Due to these issues, the City needs to prepare a revised DEIR once protocol-level surveys have been completed for the Project. Vernal Pool Branchiopods The Project site provides potential habitat for the federally endangered longhorn fairy shrimp and the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, both of which have been documented in the vicinity of the Project site.11 However, according to the BRA, these fairy shrimp species are 10 California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline>. See also California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843>. See also California Native Plant Society. 2001 (Revised). CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Available at: <http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf>. See also California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83842>. 11 DEIR, p. 7-7. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1320 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 4 unlikely to inhabit the Project site.12 The DEIR adopts this conclusion and provides no further discussion of either species.13 By doing so, the DEIR fails to properly establish existing conditions at the Project site, as required by CEQA. Longhorn Fairy Shrimp The BRA’s rationale for discounting the potential for longhorn fairy shrimp at the Project site is that: (a) the Project Area does not contain clear depression pools in sandstone outcrops that typically support longhorn fairy shrimp in this portion of its range; (b) the Project Area is not designated critical habitat for the species; and (c) the nearest recorded occurrence of the species is over 5 miles from the Project Area.14 As discussed below, these reasons do not constitute substantial evidence for eliminating the potential for longhorn fairy shrimp to occur at the Project site, and thus, the potential for the Project to have significant impacts on the species. First, longhorn fairy shrimp are not limited to clear depression pools in sandstone outcrops.15 As the BRA acknowledges, the specific pool characteristics associated with longhorn fairy shrimp habitat are largely unknown.16 Whereas the three occurrence records from Contra Costa and Alameda Counties are associated with sandstone outcrop pools, longhorn fairy shrimp are also known to occur in alkaline grassland vernal pools, roadside ditches, and a constructed wetland.17 The Project site contains alkaline grassland vernal pools and features comparable to roadside ditches.18 As a result, the absence of sandstone outcrop pools at the Project site cannot be used to eliminate the potential for longhorn fairy shrimp to occur at the Project site. Second, potential habitat for the longhorn fairy shrimp is not limited to designated critical habitat. Indeed, just because an area is outside of designated critical habitat does not mean that it has no value to the species.19 There are numerous examples of federally listed species occurring in areas that have not been designated critical habitat, and conversely, critical habitat areas that are unoccupied by federally listed species. Third, the fact that the nearest recorded occurrence of longhorn fairy shrimp is over five miles away is not evidence that the species could not occur at the Project site. As the BRA acknowledges, longhorn fairy shrimp occurrences are “highly disjunct.”20 Moreover, because the BRA provides no evidence that potential habitat within five miles of the Project site has been surveyed for longhorn fairy shrimp, the lack of occurrence records within five miles of the Project site is not evidence that the species is absent from that area. 12 BRA, p. 27. 13 DEIR, p. 7-7. 14 BRA, p. 29. 15 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-187. 16 BRA, p. 29. 17 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jul 3. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 18 DEIR, Appendix C-3: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report. 19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Critical Habitat: What is it? p. 2. 20 BRA, p. 29. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1321 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The BRA acknowledges that the vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs in a variety of both natural and artificial wetland habitats (e.g., alkali pools, ephemeral drainages, stock ponds, roadside ditches, vernal swales, and rock outcrop pools).21 It further acknowledges that occupied wetlands are typically small (0.05 to 0.1 acre) and pond for a relatively short duration (3 to 4 weeks).22 The six wetlands on the Project site have characteristics that are consistent with this description of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.23 The BRA’s rationale for discounting the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp at the Project site is that: “regular site disturbance (e.g. discing), 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.”24 As described below, these are specious arguments that are not supported by scientific evidence. First, according to the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report, two of the wetlands (i.e., W01 and W02) are located in an area that does not appear to experience significant disturbance.25 Therefore, “regular site disturbance” cannot be used to discount the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp at these two wetlands. Second, 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.”26 Third, development surrounding the Project site does not preclude the potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp. Vernal pool fairy shrimp populations are naturally isolated from other populations and are distributed in discontinuous vernal pool systems. 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.”27 The BRA provides no evidence that the surrounding development, or any other factor, has eliminated the environmental requirements needed to support vernal pool fairy shrimp at the Project site. Fourth, the lack of occurrences within the vicinity of the Project Area does not preclude the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp. The vernal pool fairy shrimp naturally occurs in discrete 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 DEIR, Appendix C-3: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report. 24 BRA, p. 29. 25 DEIR, Appendix C-3: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report, Section 5.1.1. 26 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Occurrence No. 212. 27 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. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1322 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 6 (isolated) populations throughout its geographic range.28 Some of these populations are located many (up to 15) miles away from the next nearest population.29 California Linderiella Neither the DEIR nor the BRA mentions the California linderiella, which is considered a special- status species (NatureServe Rank of G2G3 S2S3).30 California linderiella occupy the same types of habitat as the vernal pool fairy shrimp,31 and they have been detected in seasonal wetlands comparable to those found on the Project site.32 As a result, the California linderiella has the potential to occur at the Project site and may be impacted by the Project. 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 the Project site).33 The GPA does not relieve an applicant from conducting those species- specific surveys if its consultant concludes special-status invertebrates are “unlikely” to occur. As a result, species-specific surveys for the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and California linderiella are required prior to approval of the Project.34 Until those surveys have been conducted, direct and indirect impacts to the site’s wetlands represent unexamined, potentially significant impacts to the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and California linderiella. Core, Critical, and Unique Populations The DEIR states that the City of Dublin provides suitable and occupied habitat for the Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite.35 It further states that the City of Dublin “may also support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and long‐term survival of” these species.36 Incredibly, the DEIR provides no further discussion or analysis of these core, critical, or unique populations, including whether any would be affected by the Project. This precludes proper 28 Ibid. 29 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 30 G2G3 = high to moderate risk of global extinction. S2S3 = high to moderate risk of statewide extinction. 31 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. 32 E.g., See EOndx #94421 in California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Mar 6. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 33 City of Dublin. 1993. Addendum to Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. p. 22. 34 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>. 35 DEIR, p. 7-21. 36 Ibid. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1323 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 7 understanding of the environmental setting, Project impacts, and the adequacy of the City’s proposed mitigation. Burrowing Owl Status of the Local and Regional Burrowing Owl Populations The DEIR fails to disclose the status and demography of the local and regional burrowing owl populations. This information is an essential component of the DEIR because it enables the public and decision makers to evaluate the relative significance of Project impacts to the overall burrowing owl population. Burrowing owl populations have declined dramatically in the San Francisco Bay Area (“SFBA”) since the 1992 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR was prepared.37 The species has been extirpated, or nearly extirpated, from six SFBA counties (Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and San Mateo).38 Although burrowing owls were once abundant throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties, they are now primarily limited to the eastern portions of those counties.39 By 2014, only two “large” breeding colonies of burrowing owls remained in Alameda County: one in the Altamont Hills region, and one in the Camp Parks area.40 The Project site is located at the periphery of the Camp Parks burrowing owl population, which is the only breeding population of burrowing owls remaining in the Livermore-Amador Valley.41 This population, however, appears to be rapidly declining due to urban development projects that were recently authorized by the City of Dublin.42 As a result, the loss of burrowing owls and habitat from the Project site heightens the potential that the breeding population will be extirpated from the entire Livermore-Amador Valley. 37 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>. 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. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 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>. 41 Ibid. 42 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. Appendix 2. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1324 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8 Burrowing Owl Population on the Project Site According to the DEIR, burrowing owls were documented within the Project site in 2004 and 2009.43 The DEIR fails to disclose that nesting burrowing owls were also detected at the Project site in 2005, 2008, and 2010.44 WRA apparently surveyed for burrowing owls during its visit to the Project site on December 7, 2017 (i.e., during the non-breeding season).45 Based on that visit, WRA concluded that the Project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls, and that the species has a high potential to occur.46 However, WRA failed to conduct any additional surveys to determine the abundance and distribution of burrowing owls at the site, or to determine if burrowing owls still use the Project site for nesting. Burrowing owls often vacate nesting territories and are more difficult to detect during the non- breeding season.47 As a result, non-breeding season survey results are typically inconclusive and cannot be used as a substitute for breeding season surveys.48 Consequently, WRA’s failure to detect burrowing owls during one non-breeding season survey is not evidence that the site is currently uninhabited by the species—as the DEIR alleges.49 Indeed, the BRA states: “[t]he site visits conducted for the wetland delineation and the burrowing owl survey do not constitute a protocol-level survey and are not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species.”50 Burrowing owls can be difficult to detect due to their cryptic coloration, extensive use of burrows, and tendency to flush (fly away) when approached.51 As a result, burrowing owl researchers and the CDFW have concluded that four independent breeding season surveys are necessary to provide reliable information on the presence of burrowing owls.52 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. 43 DEIR, p. 7-6. 44 eBird. 2018. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available at: <http://www.ebird.org>. 45 BRA, p. 24. 46 BRA, pp. 24 and 33, and DEIR, p. 7-6. 47 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 6. See also Center for Biological Diversity, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and five others. 2003. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission and supporting information for listing the California population of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as an endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. pp. 11 and 12. 48 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 6. 49 DEIR, p. 7-15. 50 BRA, p. 11. 51 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>. 52 See Appendix D In: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1325 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 9 The DEIR requires the Applicant to conduct two pre-construction surveys prior to ground- disturbing activities at the Project site. Although CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (“Staff Report”) recommends “take avoidance” (i.e., pre-construction) surveys, the Staff Report makes it clear that those surveys are not a substitute for the four “detection surveys” required to assess Project impacts and formulate appropriate mitigation.53 Because WRA failed to conduct any “detection surveys,” the City lacks the information needed to fully disclose and evaluate Project impacts to burrowing owls, and perhaps more importantly, to ensure effective mitigation. The need to establish the baseline population of burrowing owls on a site prior to assessing impacts and formulating mitigation measures is emphasized in CDFW’s Staff Report, which states: The following three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether projects will result in impacts to burrowing owls. The information gained from these steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The steps for project impact evaluations are: 1) habitat assessment, 2) surveys, and 3) impact assessment. ….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…Detailed information, such as approximate home ranges of each individual or of family units, as well as foraging areas as related to the proposed project, will be important to document for evaluating impacts, planning avoidance measure implementation and for mitigation measure performance monitoring.54 Similarly, California Burrowing Owl Consortium mitigation guidelines state: There is often inadequate information about the presence of owls on a project site until ground disturbance is imminent. When this occurs there is usually insufficient time to evaluate impacts to owls and their habitat. The absence of standardized field survey methods impairs adequate and consistent impact assessment during regulatory review processes, which in turn reduces the possibility of effective mitigation.55 It is not possible to effectively assess Project impacts and the City’s proposed mitigation until protocol surveys that adhere to CDFW guidelines have been conducted. As a result, the City must require the Applicant to conduct the detection surveys described in CDFW’s Staff Report, and the results of those surveys need to be released 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. 53 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 54 Ibid, pp. 5, 6 and 29. 55 See p. i In: The California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. [emphasis added]. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1326 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 10 IMPACT ANALYSIS ISSUES Burrowing Owl Habitat Loss Habitat loss caused by development is the most immediate threat to burrowing owls that reside in high growth areas of the San Francisco Bay Area.56 The further decline of burrowing owls in the few remaining core population areas—such as the Camp Parks area—will have a significant effect on the overall persistence of burrowing owls in the region. This is exemplified by the extirpation of almost all burrowing owl colonies from western Alameda and Contra Costa counties following build out in the 1980s and 1990s.57 The DEIR fails to analyze how the loss of burrowing owl habitat from the Project site may directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affect the local (Camp Parks) burrowing owl population, which is the only breeding population remaining in the Livermore-Amador Valley.58 Instead, it jumps to the conclusion that Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 (Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures) would reduce potential impacts to the species to a less-than-significant level.59 This conclusion is not supported by evidence because the DEIR provides no assurances that Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 would, or could, mitigate significant impacts to the local or regional burrowing owl populations. Burrow Exclusion The Project may involve the “passive relocation” of burrowing owls from the Project site by excluding them from their burrows.60,61 The DEIR, however, fails to evaluate impacts to burrowing owls due to burrow exclusion, or to identify mitigation measures sufficient to reduce such impacts below a level of significance. Consistent with CDFW guidelines, burrow exclusion is a potentially significant impact under CEQA that must be analyzed.62 Specifically, burrow exclusion may result in: (a) significant loss of habitat for reproduction, refuge from predators, and shelter from weather; (b) increased stress on burrowing owls and reduced reproductive rates; (c) increased depredation; (d) increased energetic costs; and (e) risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows.63 The City must disclose and thoroughly analyze the impacts associated with excluding burrowing owls from their burrows on the Project site. 56 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. 57 Ibid. See also California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Aug 7. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. See also Glover SG. 2009. Breeding bird atlas of Contra Costa County. Mount Diablo Audubon Society, Walnut Creek (CA). 260pp. 58 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. 59 DEIR, p. 7-15. 60 DEIR, p. 7-18. 61 Although not specified in the DEIR, burrow exclusion entails the installation of one-way doors on occupied burrows so owls can exit, but not re-enter, the burrows. 62 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, p. 10. 63 Ibid, pp. 10 and 21. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1327 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 11 The need for full analysis of potential impacts associated with passive relocation (i.e., exclusion) of burrowing owls is further supported by research that indicates most relocation projects have resulted in fewer breeding pairs of burrowing owls at the mitigation site than at the original site, and that relocation projects generally have failed to produce self-sustaining populations.64 Investigators attribute the limited success of relocation to: (a) strong site tenacity exhibited by burrowing owls, and (b) potential risks associated with forcing owls to move into unfamiliar and perhaps less preferable habitats.65 The DEIR’s failure to analyze potential impacts associated with burrow exclusion is exacerbated by its deferral of the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan.66 This makes it impossible for the public, resource agencies, and decision makers to evaluate the probability that there will be significant impacts to owls that are excluded from the Project site. At a minimum, the City must provide critical details associated with the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan, so those critical aspects of the plan can be vetted during the CEQA review process. These include: (a) information on the artificial burrows that would be installed prior to burrow exclusion; (b) a description of the artificial burrow maintenance program; (c) a description of the monitoring program, including the frequency of monitoring and the information that will be provided in monitoring reports;67 (d) the success criteria; and (e) the contingency measures that will be implemented if success criteria are not achieved.68 Because the DEIR fails to provide these critical details, it fails to provide substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusion that impacts to burrowing owls would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite The Project site provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike. In addition, the Project site provides foraging habitat, and potential nesting habitat, for the white- tailed kite (a white-tailed was observed foraging at the Project site during the 7 December 2017 site visit).69 The DEIR, however, fails to provide any specific analysis of Project impacts to these two species, including how the loss of approximately 77 acres of habitat might affect the local and regional populations. 64 Smith BW, JR Belthoff. 2001. Burrowing owls and development: short-distance nest burrow relocation to minimize construction impacts. J. Raptor Research 35:385-391. 65 Ibid. 66 DEIR, p. 7-18. 67 The DEIR (p. 7-19) states: “[m]onitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.” However, the CDFW Staff Report does not specify a monitoring program. See California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Appendix E, p. 32. 68 See California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Appendix E. 69 BRA, p. 24. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1328 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 12 Cumulative Impacts The DEIR’s cumulative impacts analyses fail to comply with CEQA Guidelines § 15130. Specifically: CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1) state that the cumulative impacts analysis must contain either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The DEIR fails to provide either of these elements. This precludes the ability to independently analyze cumulative impacts and the Project’s contribution to those impacts. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(3) state that lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. Although the DEIR defines the geographic scope as the City of Dublin, it fails to provide an explanation for that geographic limitation.70 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(4) require a summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by cumulative projects, with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(5) require a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. As described below, the DEIR fails to satisfy these requirements. Special-status Species The DEIR fails to provide any actual analysis of cumulative impacts to special-status species that would (or could) be affected by the Project. Specifically, there is no analysis of: (a) the amount of habitat that existed prior to anthropogenic disturbance; (b) the amount of habitat that has been, or will be, affected by past, present, and probable future projects; or (c) the amount of habitat that is needed to maintain viable populations of the various special-status species that could be affected by the Project. Indeed, the DEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts to special-status species is limited to the following statements: The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite would be reduced through adherence to MM BIO-1.1. MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3. Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to similar standard mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on wetlands to less than cumulatively considerable. As such, cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.71 The DEIR’s rationale is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons: 70 DEIR, p. 7-21. 71 Ibid. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1329 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 13 First, the DEIR fails to ensure that the compensatory mitigation required under MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3 would be within the City of Dublin (i.e., the geographic area analyzed for cumulative impacts). If compensatory mitigation is not accomplished in the City of Dublin, cumulative impacts to special-status species habitat within the geographic area analyzed in the DEIR would remain potentially significant. Second, the DEIR acknowledges the City of Dublin may support core, critical, or unique populations essential to the recovery and long‐term survival of Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite.72 The DEIR, however, fails to provide any evidence or assurances that the mitigation proposed in MM BIO- 1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3 would offset cumulative impacts to these core, critical, or unique populations. For example, although the Project could have significant impacts on a critical population of burrowing owls (i.e., the “Camp Parks” population), the DEIR does not ensure the burrowing owl mitigation proposed in MM BIO-1.3 would offset impacts to that population. Third, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that “adherence to similar standard mitigation” has, and would, mitigate significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that mitigation required by the City of Dublin for other projects has been ineffective in preventing significant impacts to special-status species. For example, burrowing owl mitigation imposed by the City for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project has not offset impacts to the core breeding population at Camp Parks, nor has it provided any benefit to the breeding population as a whole.73 Indeed, the core breeding population at Camp Parks now appears to be on the verge of extinction due to development projects authorized by the City.74 As a result, the City must provide reasonable analysis of cumulative impacts to the local (i.e., City of Dublin) and regional (i.e., Livermore-Amador Valley) burrowing owl populations, and that analysis must consider realistic inferences on the efficacy of “standard mitigation” given the failure of previous mitigation efforts. Fourth, habitat loss is a major threat to the loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite.75 However, the DEIR does not incorporate compensatory mitigation for Project impacts to habitat for these two species, nor has the City required other projects to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite habitat. As a result, the Project’s contribution to potentially significant cumulative impacts remains unmitigated. 72 Ibid. 73 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. Appendix 2. 74 Ibid. 75 Shuford WD, T Gardali, editors. 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, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. See also Kalinowski RS, MD Johnson. 2010. Influence of Suburban Habitat on a Wintering Bird Community in Coastal California. The Condor 12(2):274–282. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1330 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 14 Wetlands The DEIR fails to provide any information on wetlands (and other jurisdictional waters) that have been, or will be, affected by past, present, and probable future projects. This includes information on the type, amount, and ecological functions of wetlands affected under the cumulative impacts scenario. Indeed, the DEIR’s analysis is limited to the statements that: 1. “[t]he project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to less-than-cumulatively considerable.”76 2. [t]he required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on wetlands to less than cumulatively considerable. These conclusions are not justified because MM BIO-3.1 does not identify how the City would mitigate the Project’s impacts on wetlands; it simply requires the preparation of a wetland mitigation plan after the CEQA review process terminates. Moreover, even if one assumes the wetland mitigation plan includes compensatory mitigation that is successful in preventing no net loss of wetland functions and area, MM BIO-3.1 does not require the compensatory mitigation to be within the City of Dublin (i.e., the area analyzed for cumulative impacts), and thus, cumulative impacts to wetlands within the City of Dublin would remain significant. MITIGATION ISSUES MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants The DEIR requires the Applicant to conduct a focused survey prior to construction to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species on the Project site. If no special-status plant species are found during the survey, then no additional mitigation measures would be implemented. However, if Congdon’s tarplant or any other special-status plant species are detected during the survey, additional mitigation measures would be required. There are several problems with the proposed mitigation: First, Congdon’s tarplant is known to occur at the Project site. Therefore, there is no basis for making additional mitigation contingent on the results of a future survey of unknown quality, and conducted by a biologist with uncertain qualifications. This is especially true for annual plants such as Congdon’s tarplant, because the presence and abundance of annual plants can fluctuate dramatically from year to year due to climatic conditions. Thus, the absence of Congdon’s tarplant from the Project site during a pre-construction survey may be the result of adverse survey conditions rather than actual absence of the species. As WRA’s Rare Plant Survey Report acknowledges: “the failure to locate a rare plant occurrence during one field season does not constitute evidence that this plant occurrence no longer exists at this location, particularly if adverse conditions are present.”77 76 DEIR, p. 7-21. 77 DEIR, Appendix C-2: Rare Plant Survey Report, p. 7. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1331 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 15 Second, the DEIR states that compensatory mitigation would not be required if activity exclusion zones can be installed around special-status plants. Based on the site plan, all existing plants will be directly or indirectly affected by the Project.78 However, even if activity exclusion zones are feasible during construction of the Project, the DEIR fails to incorporate measures to protect the plants from human disturbance and other indirect effects (e.g., altered hydrology) after the Project is built. This issue is exacerbated by the DEIR’s failure to incorporate performance standards for special-status plants that are “protected” by activity exclusion zones. Isolated “islands” of special-status plants disconnected by the Project from natural processes should not be considered protected because isolated populations are not sustainable. As a result, activity exclusion zones would not ensure Project impacts to special-status plants are mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Compensatory Mitigation Strategy The DEIR requires the Applicant to prepare a mitigation plan if impacts to Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status plant species cannot be avoided. According to the DEIR: “[a] mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of special-status plants.” The DEIR cannot defer formulation of the mitigation plan unless it establishes fundamental aspects of that plan in the DEIR. These include: (a) the performance standards (or success criteria) for the proposed mitigation, (b) a definitive enforcement mechanism that ensures performance standards are met; (c) the contingency or remedial action measures that would be triggered if success standards are not achieved; (d) the measures that would be implemented to ensure the long-term protection and management of sensitive biological resources at mitigation sites; and (e) the required monitoring program, including the monitoring techniques, effort, and frequency. Because the DEIR lacks these fundamental details, the City has not ensured Project impacts to special-status plants would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The DEIR’s deferral of the mitigation plan is exacerbated by its failure to provide evidence that the proposed mitigation is feasible. There do not appear to be any mitigation banks that sell credits for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant.79 In addition, the City has not identified the in-lieu fee program that might be used for Project mitigation, nor do there appear to be any in-lieu fee programs that cover impacts to Congdon’s tarplant. Whereas the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas supporting Congdon’s tarplant is an acceptable option, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that sites suitable for acquisition exist—especially given the demand generated by other 78 Indirect impacts associated with the Project include trampling, pollution, altered hydrology, shading, invasive plants, and pesticide drift. 79 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Conservation and Mitigation Banks Established in California by CDFW [website]. Available at: <https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Banking/Approved- Banks#r3>. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1332 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 16 projects requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant.80 As a result, the City needs to produce a revised DEIR that identifies the: (a) potential mitigation sites, and status of Congdon’s tarplant at those sites; (b) proposed mitigation ratio; (c) performance standards for the mitigation sites; (d) required monitoring program; and, (e) measures that will be implemented to ensure the long-term protection and management of Congdon’s tarplant populations at the mitigation sites. In addition, the DEIR needs to establish the required timeframe for implementation of the mitigation plan. Currently, the DEIR only requires approval of the mitigation plan prior to Project impacts; there are no deadlines for implementation of the plan (i.e., the acquisition and protection of off-site mitigation areas). As a result, successful implementation of the mitigation plan is uncertain and unenforceable. Compensatory Mitigation Ratio According to the DEIR, the compensatory mitigation ratio for Project impacts to special-status plants would be at least 1:1. However, the forthcoming mitigation plan, which would be approved by the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact special-status plants, would identify “the appropriate mitigation ratios.”81 The DEIR fails to identify whether the compensatory mitigation ratio would be based on the number of plants impacted by the Project or the total amount of special-status plant habitat impacted by the Project. Moreover, as the lead agency the City is responsible for determining the mitigation ratio(s) needed to mitigate the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant levels; the City cannot defer that analysis to another agency, and itself, after the CEQA review process terminates. The Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”) establishes the standard for mitigation needed to conserve species and habitat in Eastern Alameda County. The mitigation proposed in the DEIR does not adhere to the EACCS. Specifically, the EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 5:1 for impacts to focal plant species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant).82 In addition to failing to adhere to EACCS, the default ratio (i.e., 1:1) proposed in the DEIR is not consistent with other projects in Dublin. For example, the City is requiring a 5:1 ratio for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant at the Zeiss Innovation Center Project site.83 The DEIR fails to explain why a 5:1 ratio was needed to mitigate impacts at the Zeiss project site, while the proposed Project only requires a 1:1 ratio. Because the DEIR defers critical aspects of the mitigation plan, and does not incorporate performance standards for the mitigation, the City’s conclusion that Project impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other special-status plant species would be reduced to a less-than- significant level is not supported by substantial evidence. 80 Other projects in the City of Dublin that require mitigation for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant include the Ikea Retail Center Project, Zeiss Innovation Center Project, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project, Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) Project, and East County Hall of Justice Project, among others. 81 DEIR, p. 7-17. 82 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. Table 3-12. 83 City of Dublin. 2017 Dec 8. Zeiss Innovation Center: Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. p. 29. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1333 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 17 MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl The DEIR incorporates the following mitigation measures for Project impacts to burrowing owls: (1) pre-construction surveys that would be conducted immediately before ground-disturbing activities; (2) avoidance measures; (3) burrow exclusion; and, (4) preparation and implementation of a mitigation plan if avoidance is not possible. As discussed below, these measures fail to properly address and mitigate the impacts on burrowing owls: Burrowing Owl Survey The DEIR requires a pre-construction survey no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and a second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. Two pre- construction surveys that would be conducted during any time of the year do not provide reliable information on burrowing owls that may be impacted by the Project. As discussed previously, the two “take avoidance” (pre-construction) 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. According to CDFW’s Staff Report: “[a]ny new burrowing owl colonizing the project site after the CEQA document has been adopted may constitute changed circumstances that should be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document.”84 Because WRA did not conduct the surveys needed to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls at the Project site,85 any burrowing owls occupying the site when the pre-construction surveys are conducted would constitute changed circumstances that will need to be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document. The DEIR, however, fails to incorporate any provisions for re-circulating the EIR should owls be detected during the pre-construction surveys. Because the Project could have severe consequences on persistence of the local and regional burrowing owl populations, it is imperative that the public be given an opportunity to review and submit comments on the burrowing owl survey results prior to any Project impacts. The mitigation measure also fails to properly address the impacts because it does not guarantee proper timing, which is crucial to the success of the mitigation. Specifically, the mitigation measure does not require any breeding season surveys to ascertain the importance of the site to breeding burrowing owls. Instead, the surveys would be conducted immediately prior to ground- disturbing activities, which would be at the discretion of the Applicant. This would not ensure impacts to burrowing owls are properly mitigated because burrowing owl activity patterns and habitat use are related to the season. During the breeding season, burrowing owl activity is centered around the nest site(s). As a result, several surveys spaced throughout the breeding season can provide reliable information on site occupancy. However, attachment to the nest site and breeding territory is greatly reduced during the non-breeding season (i.e., owls tend to wander).86 Therefore, pre-construction surveys that are conducted during the non-breeding 84 Ibid, p. 10. [emphasis added]. 85 BRA, p. 11. 86 Coulombe HN. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. The Condor 73(2):162-176. See also Center for Biological Diversity, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and five others. 2003. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission and 5.2 Packet Pg. 1334 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 18 season would not provide reliable information on owls that use the site, especially to breed.87 This could 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 DEIR). Because the DEIR fails to require breeding season surveys, the City does not have the basis for its conclusion that impacts to burrowing owls would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Avoidance Measures CDFW’s Staff Report lists several measures that should be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owls.88 These include the implementation of spatial and temporal buffers to avoid direct destruction of burrows and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. They also include ongoing surveillance of the site during project activities. The DEIR fails to incorporate any of the avoidance measures listed in CDFW’s Staff Report. Indeed, the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR are limited to measures that would eliminate habitat from the Project site (i.e., the destruction of burrows and other features that provide cover for burrowing owls).89 Because the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR could have significant impacts on burrowing owls,90 the DEIR needs to clarify that they should only be implemented during the non-breeding season, and only after implementation of the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. This issue is exacerbated because the avoidance measures incorporated into the DEIR lack crucial details for proper implementation. For example, although the DEIR indicates the burrows at the site should be “inspected” for burrowing owls before they are destroyed, it fails to establish the inspection methods. This is important because burrowing owls construct their nests in a cavity at the end of a tunnel.91 The nest cavity is typically located after a turn in the tunnel and may be several feet underground.92 As a result, use of specialized equipment (e.g., fiber optic scope) is required to confirm absence of burrowing owl nests in burrows. Because the DEIR does not require use of specialized equipment to confirm absence, “inspecting” burrows would not mitigate potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls. Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan The DEIR requires the Applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, to prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan “if avoidance of burrowing owls or their burrows is not possible.” As discussed above, the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR are limited to measures that would supporting information for listing the California population of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as an endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. pp. 11 and 12. 87 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 6. 88 Ibid, pp. 8 though 10. 89 DEIR, p. 7-18. 90 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. pp. 8 through 10. 91 Zarn M. 1974. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endagered Species: Burrowing Owl. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers. Technical Note 11. pp. 8 and 9. See also Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. The Condor 73(2):162-176. 92 Ibid. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1335 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 19 eliminate habitat from the Project site. This suggests the Applicant would only be required to prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan if it is unable to eliminate all potential habitat from the Project site. The DEIR needs to clarify that the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR should only be implemented during the non-breeding season, and only after implementation of the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. In addition, the DEIR should clarify that the CDFW needs to approve the Applicant’s Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation Plan MM BIO-1.2 includes the following provision: 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 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.93 The burrowing owl mitigation plan is critical to the Project’s ability to adequately mitigate potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls. Specific information pertaining to the City’s mitigation strategy is especially important given the perilous status of the burrowing owl population that remains in the Livermore-Amador Valley. As a result, the City cannot defer critical components of the burrowing owl mitigation plan to analysis that would be conducted after the CEQA review process terminates. This includes the: (1) compensatory mitigation ratio; (2) habitat replacement strategy (e.g., preservation, enhancement, or creation); (3) habitat replacement mechanism (e.g., habitat acquisition, purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, or in- lieu fee); (4) acceptable locations for habitat compensation (e.g., Livermore-Amador Valley); (5) site protection methods; (6) financial assurances; (7) performance standards; and (8) monitoring and reporting requirements. The DEIR’s deferral of these components 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 efforts are effective in reducing impacts to burrowing owls to less-than-significant levels.94 For example, although a lawsuit motivated the City of Dublin to require 313 acres of compensatory mitigation for the Dublin Crossing Project, neither the City nor the CDFW incorporated mechanisms to ensure the compensation lands would mitigate impacts to the thriving and successful burrowing owl colony that occurred at the project site. Indeed, information obtained from a Public Records Act request reveals that the compensation lands do not support any breeding burrowing owls.95 As a result, it is imperative that the public be given an opportunity to review and submit comments on the burrowing owl mitigation plan prior to any Project impacts. 93 DEIR, p. 7-19. 94 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. 43 pp. 95 Ibid, Appendix 2. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1336 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 20 The DEIR fails to identify the compensatory mitigation ratio that would be applied for Project impacts to burrowing owl habitat. 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 population96 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 establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 3:1 (3.5:1 if the mitigation site is in a different core area).97 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 DEIR does not contain mitigation that adheres to the standards in the EACCS, and because the DEIR fails to ensure that the mitigation would have any benefit to the breeding population that remains in the Livermore-Amador Valley, Project impacts on the burrowing owl remain potentially significant. MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3 lacks critical details to ensure effective implementation of nesting bird avoidance measures. MM BIO-1.3 states: 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 may vary based on species and conditions, but is typically 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 to January 31). This mitigation measure lacks crucial details necessary to ensure it will be effective in mitigating the impacts. Nest finding is labor intensive and can be extremely difficult due to the tendency of many species to construct well-concealed or camouflaged nests.98 As a result, most studies that involve locating bird nests employ a variety of search techniques. These include flushing an adult from the nest, watching parental behavior (e.g., carrying nest material or food), and systematically searching nesting substrates.99 In addition, breeding birds are known to be most active and detectable early in the morning, and there is a strong positive correlation between survey effort and abundance of nests detected. As a result, MM BIO-1.3 needs to specify the techniques that should be applied to nest surveys, the minimum level of effort required (i.e., hours per unit area), the search area, and the time of day surveys will be permitted. 96 Ibid. 97 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. 98 DeSante DF, GR Geupel. 1987. Landbird productivity in central coastal California: the relationship to annual rainfall and a reproductive failure in 1986. Condor. 89:636-653. 99 Martin TE, GR Geupel. 1993. Nest-Monitoring Plots: Methods for Locating Nests and Monitoring Success. J. Field Ornithol. 64(4):507-519. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1337 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 21 The DEIR suggests the Applicant’s biologist would be responsible for determining the size of any nest buffers. This is not a reliable mitigation strategy because construction contractors often pressure biologists into making decisions based on the contractor’s needs, rather than the needs of the bird. Many biologists succumb to this pressure, especially when they have been hired by the contractor (which is the case proposed in the DEIR). Moreover, the appropriate buffer size is dependent on several situational and species-specific factors. Most biologists (including excellent “birders”) have minimal knowledge of how these factors affect nesting success. Because the DEIR does not establish any minimum qualifications for the biologist, the City does not have the basis for assuming the biologist would be qualified to make decisions on the size of nest buffers. As a result, the DEIR must establish a mechanism that ensures the buffer size selected by the Applicant’s biologist is sufficient to prevent impacts to bird nests. The DEIR fails to provide evidence to support the statement that a nest buffer “is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors.” According to the DEIR, typical construction noise levels would range from approximately 75 dBA to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.100 Noise at these levels far exceeds the level that is deleterious to most breeding birds.101 For other projects the CDFW has recommended a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 500 feet for unlisted raptors, and 250 feet for other non-listed bird species.102 It has further recommended surveys to establish the behavioral baseline prior to construction, accompanied by continuous monitoring of nests after construction commences to detect any behavioral changes.103 It is my professional opinion that unless these guidelines are followed, the Project would have an unmitigated, significant impact on nesting birds. MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan MM BIO-3.1 requires the Applicant to acquire the “appropriate applicable permit(s)” for impacts to the site’s wetlands. It further requires the Applicant to prepare a wetland mitigation plan that is approved by the City and applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB). The DEIR concludes these actions would reduce Project impacts to wetlands to a less-than-significant level. There are two main reasons why the City’s conclusion is not supported by evidence: First, the DEIR impermissibly defers analysis and critical aspects of the wetlands mitigation strategy. 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, or enhancement), mitigation ratio, monitoring program, and performance standards that will be implemented to ensure the Project would have less-than- 100 DEIR, p. 14-15. 101 Kaseloo PA, KO Tyson. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. Available at: <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_effect_on_wildlife/effects/effects.pdf>. See also Reijnen R, R Foppen, G Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:567-581. See also Ortega CP. 2012. Effects of Noise Pollution on Birds: A Brief Review of Our Knowledge. Ornithological Monographs 74:6-22. 102 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015 Jan 13. Letter to Merced County Planning and Community Development Department regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Wright Solar Project. p. 3. 103 Ibid. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1338 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 22 significant impacts on the environment (i.e., independent of analysis conducted by the USACE and RWQCB designed to ensure compliance with state and federal wetland regulations). Contrary to what the DEIR 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.104 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.105 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.”106 The National Academy of Sciences (2001) conducted a comprehensive review of compensatory 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.107 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.108 Several other studies have shown that the regulatory agencies are not ensuring the success of wetland 104 Kern County. 2011 Oct. Final Environmental Impact Report: RE Distributed Solar Projects, Chapter 7-4 (part 1), comment letter 8. 105 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. 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. See also Kihslinger RL. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects. 2008. National Wetlands Newsletter 30(2):14-16. 106 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. 107 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. 108 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. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1339 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 23 mitigation projects.109 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.”110 For these reasons, MM BIO-3.1 does not ensure that the Project’s impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to less- than-significant levels. CONCLUSION Due to the issues discussed above, the Project would have significant impacts on sensitive biological resources. The DEIR that was prepared for the Project does not adequately disclose and analyze those impacts, nor does it provide the mitigation necessary to ensure significant impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Sincerely, Scott Cashen, M.S. Senior Biologist 109 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. 110 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>. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1340 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 1 Scott Cashen, M.S. Senior Biologist / Forest Ecologist 3264 Hudson Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94597. (925) 256-9185. scottcashen@gmail.com Scott Cashen has 20 years of professional experience in natural resources management. During that time he has worked as a field biologist, forester, environmental consultant, and instructor of Wildlife Management. Mr. Cashen currently operates an independent consulting business that focuses on CEQA/NEPA compliance issues, endangered species, scientific field studies, and other topics that require a high level of scientific expertise. Mr. Cashen has knowledge and experience with many taxa, biological resource issues, and environmental regulations. This knowledge and experience has made him a highly sought after biological resources expert. To date, he has been retained as a biological resources expert for over 40 projects. Mr. Cashen’s role in this capacity has encompassed all stages of the environmental review process, from initial document review through litigation support and expert witness testimony. Mr. Cashen is a recognized expert on the environmental impacts of renewable energy development. He has been involved in the environmental review process for 28 renewable energy projects, and he has been a biological resources expert for more of California’s solar energy projects than any other private consultant. In 2010, Mr. Cashen testified on 5 of the Department of the Interior’s “Top 6 Fast-tracked Solar Projects” and his testimony influenced the outcome of each of these projects. Mr. Cashen is a versatile scientist capable of addressing numerous aspects of natural resource management simultaneously. Because of Mr. Cashen’s expertise in both forestry and biology, Calfire had him prepare the biological resource assessments for all of its fuels treatment projects in Riverside and San Diego Counties following the 2003 Cedar Fire. Mr. Cashen has led field studies on several special-status species, including plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Mr. Cashen has been the technical editor of several resource management documents, and his strong scientific writing skills have enabled him to secure grant funding for several clients. AREAS OF EXPERTISE ¥ CEQA, NEPA, and Endangered Species Act compliance issues ¥ Comprehensive biological resource assessments ¥ Endangered species management ¥ Renewable energy ¥ Forest fuels reduction and timber harvesting ¥ Scientific field studies, grant writing and technical editing EDUCATION M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science - The Pennsylvania State University (1998) B.S. Resource Management - The University of California, Berkeley (1992) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1341 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 2 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Litigation Support / Expert Witness As a biological resources expert, Mr. Cashen reviews CEQA/NEPA documents and provides his client(s) with an assessment of biological resource issues. He then prepares written comments on the scientific and legal adequacy of the project’s environmental documents (e.g., EIR). For projects requiring California Energy Commission (CEC) approval, Mr. Cashen has submitted written testimony (opening and rebuttal) in conjunction with oral testimony before the CEC. Mr. Cashen can lead field studies to generate evidence for legal testimony, and he can incorporate testimony from his deep network of species-specific experts. Mr. Cashen’s clients have included law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Solar Energy Facilities Geothermal Energy Facilities ¥ Abengoa Mojave Solar Project ¥ East Brawley Geothermal Development¥ Avenal Energy Power Plant ¥ Mammoth Pacific 1 Replacement Facility¥ Beacon Solar Energy Project ¥ Western GeoPower Plant and Steamfield¥ Blythe Solar Power Project Wind Energy Facilities ¥ Calico Solar Project ¥ Catalina Renewable Energy Project ¥ Calipatria Solar Farm II ¥ Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Project¥ Carrizo Energy Solar Farm ¥ San Diego County Wind Ordinance ¥ Catalina Renewable Energy Project ¥ Tres Vaqueros Repowering Project ¥ Fink Road Solar Farm ¥ Vasco Winds Relicensing Project ¥ Genesis Solar Energy Project Biomass Facilities ¥ Heber Solar Energy Facility ¥ Tracy Green Energy Project ¥ Imperial Valley Solar Project Development Projects ¥ Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System ¥ Alves Ranch ¥ Maricopa Sun Solar Complex ¥ Aviano ¥ Mt. Signal and Calexico Solar Projects ¥ Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan ¥ San Joaquin Solar I & II ¥ Columbus Salame ¥ Solar Gen II Projects ¥ Concord Naval Weapons Station ¥ SR Solis Oro Loma ¥ Faria Annexation ¥ Vestal Solar Facilities ¥ Live Oak Master Plan ¥ Victorville 2 Power Project ¥ Napa Pipe ¥ Roddy Ranch ¥ Rollingwood ¥ Sprint-Nextel Tower 5.2 Packet Pg. 1342 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 3 Project Management Mr. Cashen has managed several large-scale wildlife, forestry, and natural resource management projects. Many of these projects have required hiring and training field crews, coordinating with other professionals, and communicating with project stakeholders. Mr. Cashen’s experience in study design, data collection, and scientific writing make him an effective project manager, and his background in several different natural resource disciplines enable him to address the many facets of contemporary land management in a cost-effective manner. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Wildlife Studies • Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Resource Use and Behavior Study: (CA State Parks) • “KV” Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Inventory: (USFS, Plumas NF) • Amphibian Inventory Project: (USFS, Plumas NF) • San Mateo Creek Steelhead Restoration Project: (Trout Unlimited and CA Coastal Conservancy, Orange County) • Delta Meadows State Park Special-status Species Inventory: (CA State Parks, Locke) Natural Resources Management • Mather Lake Resource Management Study and Plan – (Sacramento County) • Placer County Vernal Pool Study – (Placer County) • Weidemann Ranch Mitigation Project – (Toll Brothers, Inc., San Ramon) • Ion Communities Biological Resource Assessments – (Ion Communities, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) • Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment – (The Wyro Company, Rio Vista) Forestry • Forest Health Improvement Projects – (CalFire, SD and Riverside Counties) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (SDG&E, San Diego Co.) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (San Diego County/NRCS) • Hillslope Monitoring Project – (CalFire, throughout California) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1343 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 4 Biological Resources Mr. Cashen has a diverse background with biological resources. He has conducted comprehensive biological resource assessments, habitat evaluations, species inventories, and scientific peer review. Mr. Cashen has led investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow- legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and forest carnivores. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Avian ¥ Study design and Lead Investigator - Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory (CA State Parks: Locke) ¥ Study design and lead bird surveyor - Placer County Vernal Pool Study (Placer County: throughout Placer County) ¥ Surveyor - Willow flycatcher habitat mapping (USFS: Plumas NF) ¥ Independent surveyor - Tolay Creek, Cullinan Ranch, and Guadacanal Village restoration projects (Ducks Unlimited/USGS: San Pablo Bay) ¥ Study design and Lead Investigator - Bird use of restored wetlands research (Pennsylvania Game Commission: throughout Pennsylvania) ¥ Study design and surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird species at a 400-acre site in Napa County (HCV Associates: Napa) ¥ Surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird abundance following diesel spill (LFR Levine-Fricke: Suisun Bay) ¥ Study design and lead bird surveyor - Green Valley Creek Riparian Restoration Site (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA) ¥ Surveyor - Burrowing owl relocation and monitoring (US Navy: Dixon, CA) ¥ Surveyor - Pre-construction raptor and burrowing owl surveys (various clients and locations) ¥ Surveyor - Backcountry bird inventory (National Park Service: Eagle, Alaska) ¥ Lead surveyor - Tidal salt marsh bird surveys (Point Reyes Bird Observatory: throughout Bay Area) ¥ Surveyor – Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (various clients and locations) Amphibian ¥ Crew Leader - Red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1344 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 5 ¥ Surveyor - Foothill yellow-legged frog surveys (PG&E: North Fork Feather River) ¥ Surveyor - Mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (El Dorado Irrigation District: Desolation Wilderness) ¥ Crew Leader - Bullfrog eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Fish and Aquatic Resources ¥ Surveyor - Hardhead minnow and other fish surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) ¥ Surveyor - Weber Creek aquatic habitat mapping (El Dorado Irrigation District: Placerville, CA) ¥ Surveyor - Green Valley Creek aquatic habitat mapping (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA) ¥ GPS Specialist - Salmonid spawning habitat mapping (CDFG: Sacramento River) ¥ Surveyor - Fish composition and abundance study (PG&E: Upper North Fork Feather River and Lake Almanor) ¥ Crew Leader - Surveys of steelhead abundance and habitat use (CA Coastal Conservancy: Gualala River estuary) ¥ Crew Leader - Exotic species identification and eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Mammals ¥ Principal Investigator – Peninsular bighorn sheep resource use and behavior study (California State Parks: Freeman Properties) ¥ Scientific Advisor –Study on red panda occupancy and abundance in eastern Nepal (The Red Panda Network: CA and Nepal) ¥ Surveyor - Forest carnivore surveys (University of CA: Tahoe NF) ¥ Surveyor - Relocation and monitoring of salt marsh harvest mice and other small mammals (US Navy: Skagg’s Island, CA) ¥ Surveyor – Surveys for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Relocation of woodrat houses (Touré Associates: Prunedale) Natural Resource Investigations / Multiple Species Studies ¥ Scientific Review Team Member – Member of the science review team assessing the effectiveness of the US Forest Service’s implementation of the Herger- Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act. ¥ Lead Consultant - Baseline biological resource assessments and habitat mapping for CDF management units (CDF: San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1345 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 6 ¥ Biological Resources Expert – Peer review of CEQA/NEPA documents (Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardoza: California) ¥ Lead Consultant - Pre- and post-harvest biological resource assessments of tree removal sites (SDG&E: San Diego County) ¥ Crew Leader - T&E species habitat evaluations for Biological Assessment in support of a steelhead restoration plan (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) ¥ Lead Investigator - Resource Management Study and Plan for Mather Lake Regional Park (County of Sacramento: Sacramento, CA) ¥ Lead Investigator - Biological Resources Assessment for 1,070-acre Alfaro Ranch property (Yuba County, CA) ¥ Lead Investigator - Wildlife Strike Hazard Management Plan (HCV Associates: Napa) ¥ Lead Investigator - Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment (The Wyro Company: Rio Vista, CA) ¥ Lead Investigator – Ion Communities project sites (Ion Communities: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) ¥ Surveyor – Tahoe Pilot Project: Validation of California’s Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model (University of California: Tahoe NF) Forestry Mr. Cashen has five years of experience working as a consulting forester on projects throughout California. Mr. Cashen has consulted with landowners and timber operators on forest management practices; and he has worked on a variety of forestry tasks including selective tree marking, forest inventory, harvest layout, erosion control, and supervision of logging operations. Mr. Cashen’s experience with many different natural resources enable him to provide a holistic approach to forest management, rather than just management of timber resources. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE ¥ Lead Consultant - CalFire fuels treatment projects (SD and Riverside Counties) ¥ Lead Consultant and supervisor of harvest activities – San Diego Gas and Electric Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project (San Diego) ¥ Crew Leader - Hillslope Monitoring Program (CalFire: throughout California) ¥ Consulting Forester – Forest inventories and timber harvest projects (various clients throughout California) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1346 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 7 Grant Writing and Technical Editing Mr. Cashen has prepared and submitted over 50 proposals and grant applications. Many of the projects listed herein were acquired through proposals he wrote. Mr. Cashen’s clients and colleagues have recognized his strong scientific writing skills and ability to generate technically superior proposal packages. Consequently, he routinely prepares funding applications and conducts technical editing for various clients. PERMITS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep CA Department of Fish and Game Scientific Collecting Permit PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS / ASSOCIATIONS The Wildlife Society (Conservation Affairs Committee member) Cal Alumni Foresters Mt. Diablo Audubon Society OTHER AFFILIATIONS Scientific Advisor and Grant Writer – The Red Panda Network Scientific Advisor – Mt. Diablo Audubon Society Grant Writer – American Conservation Experience Scientific Advisor and Land Committee Member – Save Mt. Diablo TEACHING EXPERIENCE Instructor: Wildlife Management - The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 Teaching Assistant: Ornithology - The Pennsylvania State University, 1996-1997 5.2 Packet Pg. 1347 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1348 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1349 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1350 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1351 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1352 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1353 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1354 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 2 5.2 Packet Pg. 1355 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3 5.2 Packet Pg. 1356 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 4 5.2 Packet Pg. 1357 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1358 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1359 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1360 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1361 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1362 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1363 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) October 30, 2018 Via Email and Hand Delivery Tara Bhuthimethee, Commissioner Scott Mittan, Commissioner Amit Kothari, Commissioner Stephen Wright, Commissioner Planning Commission City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Amy Millon City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 amy.million@dublin.ca.gov Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the At Dublin Project (SCH No. 2018012027) Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No. 304 and its members living and working in and around the City of Dublin (collectively “LIUNA” or “Commenters”) regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the At Dublin Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2018012027 (PLPA2017-00061) (“Project”). After reviewing the FEIR, together with our consultants, it is clear that the document fails to comply with CEQA, and fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the Project, the EIR and relevant appendices regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr. Offerman concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offerman’s expert comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A. In addition, ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood concludes the EIR’s analysis of the Project’s individual and cumulative biological impacts is incomplete and inaccurate, and that the proposed mitigation measures will not adequately mitigate the Project’s impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit B. A revised EIR should be prepared prior to Project approval to analyze all impacts and 5.2 Packet Pg. 1364 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 2 require implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as described more fully below. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is a mixed-use development that includes up to 665 residential units, including apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family detached homes, and 400,500 square feet of commercial uses. Commercial uses include a hotel, gas station, restaurants, a movie theater, and a mix of retail uses. The Project site is located at north of Interstate 580 and between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street which is within the in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (“EDSP”) area in the City of Dublin, CA II. ANALYSIS A. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT INDOOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions for the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products typically used in modern home construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Offerman, p. 3. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that residents of the At Dublin Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 125 per million. Offerman, p. 2. This is far above the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Mr. Offermann states: Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a median California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. Assuming this project will be built using typical materials and construction methods used in California, there is a fair argument that future residents will experience a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 180 per million. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017). There is a fair argument that this project will expose future residents to a significant airborne cancer risk 5.2 Packet Pg. 1365 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 3 of 180 per million, which is 18 times above the CEQA significance threshold. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. Offermann, p. 2. Mr. Offermann concludes that this significant environmental impact should be analyzed in the EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. When a Project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes a fair argument that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact and an EIR is required. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and 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”). The California Supreme Court made clear the substantial importance that an air district significance threshold plays in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse impact. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 (“As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District’s established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”). Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the BAAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant impact that must be analyzed in the EIR. Mr. Offermann suggests several feasible mitigation measures, such as requiring the use of no-added-formaldehyde composite wood products, which are readily available. Mr. Offermann also suggests requiring air ventilation systems which would reduce formaldehyde levels. Since the EIR does not analyze this impact at all, none of these or other mitigation measures are considered. Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the project indoor air emissions is exacerbated by the additional cancer risk calculated for the project from emissions from nearby motor vehicle and railroad traffic. Yet the EIR has not analyzed these health risks cumulatively. Offerman, p. 5. Mr. Offermann identifies a rule adopted in San Francisco that identifies a level of PM2.5 that triggers the installation of air filter systems in new development. “The San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2014. Article 38, Enhanced Ventilation Required for Urban Infill Sensitive Use Developments, requires that air filtration, with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 5.2 Packet Pg. 1366 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 4 be installed to remove PM2.5 from mechanically supplied outdoor air in all PM2.5 impacted areas.” Offermann Comments, p. 6. A PM2.5 impacted area includes “[a]ll areas within 500 feet of any freeway or high-traffic road way (defined as urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day), unless air dispersion modeling shows total (traffic and ambient) outdoor concentrations of less than an annual average of 10 µg/m3 PM2.5, are defined as PM2.5 impacted areas.” Id. Mr. Offermann concludes that: It is my experience that based on the high future traffic noise level of 73.6 dBA CNEL projected in the At Dublin Draft EIR (Kimley Horn, 2018), that the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will be substantially higher than 10 µg/m3, and warrant installation of MERV 13 air filters in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Id. The California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”) expressly holds that potential adverse impacts to future users and residents from pollution generated by a proposed project must be addressed under CEQA. At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 (“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800 (emphasis added). The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the Project is constructed, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the Project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process. The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either 5.2 Packet Pg. 1367 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 5 directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the hundreds of future residents at the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those humans are as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living adjacent to the Project site. A revised EIR is necessary to analyze, disclose, and mitigate this significant impact. B. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS. As detailed more fully in the attached comments of Dr. Shawn Smallwood (Ex. B), the Project will have significant impacts on biological resources that have not been addressed in the EIR. ii. The FEIR Violates CEQA Because it Fails to Analyze the Project’s Impact on Wildlife Movement. CEQA requires an analysis of a Project’s impact on wildlife movement. project will have a significant biological impact if it would “[i]nterfere 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.” CEQA Guidelines, App. G. The EIR anal yzes the Project’s impact on wildlife movement against a false CEQA standard. The EIR ’s statement that “Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas typically occurs via wildlife movement corridors,” implies that the only wildlife movement that matters to a CEQA assessment is that which occurs along movement corridors. Smallwood, p. 19. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “the primary phrase of the [CEQA] standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor or a stream course.” Id. Reliance on this false threshold of significance, the EIR fails to analyze how the Project will impact the many species of wildlife that fly, instead looking only at species that walk, slither, or crawl. While Volant Wildlife species (species that fly) fly during migration, dispersal, foraging patrols, and territory maintenance, they also require stop-over-habitat. Wildlife movement includes stop-over habitat used by birds and bats, staging habitat, and crossover habitat, but the EIR fails to analyze this potential impact. Smallwood, p. 20. “A project that removes stop-over habitat will interfere with the ability of many Volant species of wildlife to move across the region.” Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s observations and research, he concludes that the “Project would cut wildlife off from stop-over and staging habitat and would therefore interfere with wildlife movement in the region.” Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence 5.2 Packet Pg. 1368 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 6 that the Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement. Moreover, the FEIR violates CEQA because it fails to analyze the Project’s impact on the movement of Volant species. Dr. Smith’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement. The EIR must be revised to fully analyze and mitigate this impact. iii. The EIR Fails to Analyze the Project’s Impacts on Wildlife from Additional Traffic Generated by the Project. According to the EIR, the Project will generate 19,327 new daily car and truck trips on weekdays and 20,314 on Saturdays. EIR, 16-46. Yet the EIR provides no analysis of the impacts on wildlife that will be caused by an enormous increase in traffic on the roadways servicing the Project. Dr. Smallwood concludes that “this traffic will result in the deaths of thousands of animals along Tassajara Boulevard, North Dublin Blvd., Highway 580, and many other roads on which traffic will increasingly encounter wildlife trying to move to vital habitat areas in the region.” Smallwood, p. 20. As a result of increased traffic resulting from the Project, Dr. Smallwood identified likely impacts to special-status species including the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and American badgers. Id. As Dr. Smallwood notes, “regardless of whether they live on site, [these species] cross roadways that will experience increased traffic volume caused by this project.” Id. at 20. Vehicle collisions with special-status species is not a minor issue, but rather results in the death of millions of species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains: In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. A recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County (only a few miles south of the project site), California, revealed 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. Many thousands of roadkill wildlife incidents have been reported to the UC Davis Road Ecology Center (Shilling et al. 2017). In 2017, one of the major hotspots of road-killed wildlife overlaps the project site (Shilling et al. 2017). In fact, the wildlife roadkill hotspot in the project area was found to be statistically highly significant (see Figure 5 of Shilling et al. 2017). The costs to drivers is also high (Shilling et al. 22017). Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). But not one word of traffic-related impacts appears in FirstCarbon Solutions (2018) – a gross shortfall of the CEQA review. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1369 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 7 Smallwood, pp. 20-21. The EIR must be revised to include an analysis and mitigation of the result increased traffic from the Project will have on wildlife. iv. The EIR’s Cumulative Biological Resources Analysis Violates CEQA and is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. CEQA documents, such as the EIR, 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. “Cumulative impacts” are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” 14 CCR § 15355(a). “[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.” Id. “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” Comm. for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Resources Agency (“CBE v. CRA”) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 117; 14 CCR § 15355(b). 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. The CEQA Guidelines allow two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list-of-projects approach, and the summary-of projects approach. Under either method, the MND must summarize the expected environmental effects of the project and related projects, provide a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts, and examine reasonable mitigation options. 14 CCR § 15130(b). The MND’s cumulative impacts analysis does not comply with either of these requirements. The EIR’s discussion of the Project’s cumulative impact on biological resources states that individual impacts on biological species would supposedly be reduced through the proposed mitigation measures, and “[a]lthough past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status wildlife, such impacts would be 5.2 Packet Pg. 1370 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 8 site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to similar standard mitigation.” EIR, p. 7-21. The EIR therefore concludes that “cumulative impacts to special-status species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.” Id. This cumulative biological impact analysis violates CEQA in two ways. Frist, this analysis is devoid of substantial evidence and errs as a matter of law and commonsense. Lacking any substantial evidence, the EIR fails to provide sufficient information for the public to evaluate cumulative impacts that may result from approval of the Project. Indeed, the EIR does not mention a single past, present, or future project that it evaluated cumulatively with the instant Project’s biological impacts. Without any information on what – if any – cumulative projects were considered, and what environmental impacts those cumulative projects have, the public and decision makers lack any information on which to assess the validity of the cumulative impacts conclusions under CEQA. Without even the most basic information about any of the cumulative projects or their environmental impacts, the EIR’s general cumulative impact conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Seconds, in addition to being conclusory, the cumulative “analysis” is also based on flawed logic. The conclusion that the Project will have no cumulative impact because each individual impact has been reduced to a less-than-significant level relies on the exact argument CEQA’s cumulative impact analysis is meant to protect against. The entire purpose of the cumulative impact analysis is to prevent the situation where mitigation occurs to address project- specific impacts, without looking at the bigger picture. This argument, applied over and over again, has resulted in major environmental damage, and is a major reason why CEQA was enacted. As the court stated in CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal. App. 4th at 114: Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. (citations omitted). A new cumulative biological impacts analysis is needed for the Project that complies with CEQA’s requirement to look at the Project’s environmental impact, combined with the impacts of other past, current, and probable future projects. An EIR must be prepared to fully analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts. v. The EIR’s Biological Resources Mitigation Measures Violate CEQA. 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 5.2 Packet Pg. 1371 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 9 296, 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. Here, the EIR admits that the Project may have a substantial impact on the Congdon’s tarplant. To mitigate the impact, the EIR proposes mitigation measure BIO-1.1, which requires a survey to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplants prior to obtaining the first site grading, building, or other permit for development activities. EIR, 7-16. If Congdon’s tarplants are found on-site, then MM BIO-1.1 requires direct and indirect impacts of the Project on the species to be avoided “where feasible” through activity exclusion zones. Id. If avoidance of impacts on the Congdon’s tarplant is not feasible, then: The loss of individuals or occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1372 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 10 A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum of 1:1 shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off- site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of special-status plants. EIR, pp. 7-17 to 7-18. This mitigation measure violates CEQA for numerous reasons. First, it constitutes deferred mitigation. It defers the preparation of a mitigation plan until after completion of CEQA review, without imposing any substantive standards, without providing for any public review, and subject to approval by CDFW and the City. Moreover, interested parties are precluded from commenting on the adequacy of the Congdon’s tarplant mitigation plan, even though CEQA requires that they be permitted to do so. Second, there is no evidence that BIO-1.1 is feasible because there is no evidence that there are sufficient “other existing occurrences” of Congdon’s tarplant available for “acquisition, protection, and subsequent management.” The mitigation measure itself makes clear that there is no evidence that the measure is feasible, since it requires the Project applicant “provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation.” This is particularly true given that the mitigation ratio will not be determined until after the Project is approved. Moreover, the mitigation measure does not specify what the mitigation ratio refers to. Is it that individual plants shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio, or that a certain amount of habitat? 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 EIR may not rely on programs to be developed and approved later by another agency. Yet that is precisely what MM BIO-1.1 does. Here, the lead agency has improperly delegated its legal responsibility of determining what constitutes adequate mitigation to the Project applicant and CDFW. MM BIO-1.1 provides: 5.2 Packet Pg. 1373 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 11 Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. In other words, it is the Project Applicant, and not the lead agency that is formulating the mitigation measure. Moreover, the mitigation measure is subject to approval by CDFW. Finally, there is no evidence to support the EIR’s conclusion that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is sufficient to reduce the impact to Congdon’s tarplants to a less-than-significant level. The FEIR may not rely on a Congdon’s tarplant mitigation plan of unknown feasibility to be developed by the Project Application, subject to CDFW approval, at some future time after the CEQA process is complete. Without valid mitigation, the Project’s significant impact on Congdon’s tarplant remains significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 also constitutes deferred mitigation. It provides that: If avoidance of burrowing owls 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 and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl in a ratio approved by the 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. Just like MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.1 constitutes deferred mitigation, since the mitigation plan will not be developed until after the CEQA process is complete. In addition, in violation of CEQA, the burrowing owl mitigation plan ratio is subject only to the approval of CDFW, which constitutes an improper delegation of authority under CEQA. There is also no evidence that there is sufficient habitat available to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3 is also flawed. That mitigation measure provides: 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 preconstruction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the 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 to January 31). 5.2 Packet Pg. 1374 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) At Dublin CEQA Comment October 30, 2018 Page 12 EIR, 7-19. Again, this mitigation measure violates CEQA because it fails to establish a certain mitigation plan prior to Project approval. Instead, it requires that, if any nests are found, they should be protected with a “suitable buffer.” There is no explanation of what is meant by “suitable buffer” or how it will be determined what buffer is “suitable.” The same is true for MM BIO-3.1 which attempts to mitigate the loss of wetlands. That measure provides that: The project applicant shall acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB). A mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This may include the creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. The mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City. EIR, p. 7-20. There is no evidence that MM BIO-3.1 is feasible, it is uncertain, it defers mitigation, and it improperly delegates authority away from the lead agency. Each of the above mitigation measures violates CEQA, and without valid mitigation measures, each impact these mitigation measures are meant to address remain significant. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, LIUNA request the Planning Commission decline to recommend approval of the Project and instead require preparation of a revised EIR that conforms with CEQA, as described above. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Davis 5.2 Packet Pg. 1375 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing)     EXHIBIT A  5.2 Packet Pg. 1376 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: October 30, 2018 To: Richard T. Drury Lozeau | Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94607 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: At Dublin Pages: 9 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the 5.2 Packet Pg. 1377 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 2 reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a median California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. Assuming this project will be built using typical materials and construction methods used in California, there is a fair argument that future residents will experience a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 180 per million. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, 2017). There is a fair argument that this project will expose future residents to a significant airborne cancer risk of 180 per million, which is 18 times above the CEQA significance threshold. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 5.2 Packet Pg. 1378 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3 (OEHHA, 2017). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Chan et. al., 2018), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 25 µg/m3 as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 125 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products which is more than 12 times the NSRL 10 in a million cancer risk. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the 5.2 Packet Pg. 1379 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 4 primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The mixed-use development proposed for the At Dublin project is located close to roads with moderate to high traffic. As a result this development has been determined to be a sound impacted site according to the At Dublin Draft EIR (Kimley Horn, 2018), and exterior noise levels of 58.7 to 73.6 dBA CNEL may occur. This report states that the project shall retain a qualified acoustical specialist to prepare a detailed analysis of interior residential noise levels resulting from all exterior sources during the final design phase of the project pursuant to requirements set forth in the State Building Code. As a result of the high outdoor traffic related noise levels, the current project anticipates the need for mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors within each residential unit. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within residential interiors. Mechanical outdoor air ventilation systems may be designed in three airflow configurations; exhaust only systems, balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems, and outdoor air supply only systems. Exhaust only systems are the least expensive system, and in multi- family residential buildings, such as those at this project, typically consist of continuously 5.2 Packet Pg. 1380 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5 operated bathroom exhaust fans and an acoustically treated opening in the exterior wall, sometimes referred to as a Z-Duct. The Z-Duct exterior opening typically has soundliner installed on the inside surfaces of the opening to reduce the transmission of exterior noise to the indoors. The continuously operating bathroom fans create a negative air pressure in the unit that causes outdoor air to enter the indoor space through the Z-Duct. However, this negative air pressure allows for air to infiltrate the units from adjacent units, the hallways, and the exterior walls. This infiltrating air can cause staining on carpeting and on walls around electrical outlets, as well as transporting air between adjacent units, which causes complaints from cooking and smoking odors. Since tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen, the transport of the tobacco smoke to adjacent units, poses a health risk to those exposed in the adjacent units. In addition, the negative pressure created in units by exhaust only systems can cause sewer gas to enter the indoor air should plumbing drain traps become dry. Also, the Z-Duct openings for exhaust only systems preclude the inclusion of efficient outdoor air filtration without adversely impacting the flow of outdoor air into the unit. Both balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems, and outdoor air supply only systems, can have efficient outdoor air filtration without adversely impacting the flow of outdoor air into the unit. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle and railroad traffic and stationary sources associated with this project, are the increased outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. In the At Dublin Draft EIR (Kimley Horn, 2018), the modeled maximum annual PM2.5 concentration, was determined to be 0.005 µg/m3. The maximum increased cancer risk for residential receptors was calculated to be 2.59 per million. As a result, the airborne cancer risk for the future residents of the project, including the cancer risk of 125 per million cited earlier for indoor formaldehyde exposures, may be 127.59 per million. The San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2014. Article 38, Enhanced Ventilation Required for Urban Infill Sensitive Use Developments, requires that air filtration, with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 be installed to remove PM2.5 from mechanically supplied outdoor air in all PM2.5 impacted areas. All areas within 500 feet of any freeway or high- traffic road way (defined as urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 5.2 Packet Pg. 1381 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 6 50,000 vehicles/day), unless air dispersion modeling shows total (traffic and ambient) outdoor concentrations of less than an annual average of 10 µg/m3 PM2.5, are defined as PM2.5 impacted areas. It is my experience that based on the high future traffic noise level of 73.6 dBA CNEL projected in the At Dublin Draft EIR (Kimley Horn, 2018), that the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will be substantially higher than 10 µg/m3, and warrant installation of MERV 13 air filters in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: - indoor formaldehyde concentrations - outdoor air ventilation - PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra- low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room (i.e. bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, etc.) with a mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants that describes the purpose of the 5.2 Packet Pg. 1382 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 7 mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with a minimum efficiency of MERV 13 to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply system. Install the air filters in the system such that that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco, CA. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1383 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf Chan, W., Kim, Y., and Singer, B. 2018. Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Mechanical Ventilation, Proceedings of Indoor Air 2018, Philadelphia, PA. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of Formaldehyde, Other Aldehydes and Terpenes in a New Manufactured House. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. Kimley Horn. 2018. At Dublin Draft EIR, July 2018. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC‐500‐2009‐085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson (2011). Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011). June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1384 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 9 Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03- 326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2014. Article 38, Enhanced Ventilation Required for Urban Infill Sensitive Use Developments. https://www.sfdph.org/dph/EH/Air/Article38.asp USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 5.2 Packet Pg. 1385 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1386 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing)     EXHIBIT B  5.2 Packet Pg. 1387 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Amy Million, Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 29 October 2018 RE: At Dublin Dear Ms. Million, I write to comment on the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (DEIR, FEIR) and supporting biological resources report (WRA 2018) prepared for the proposed At Dublin mixed residential and commercial (Kimley-Horn 2018a,b), which I understand is to be a new development on 76.9 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. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1388 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 2 SITE VISITS I visited the proposed project site on 29 October 2018. I was at the site for two hours and 25 minutes, from 15:50 to 18:15 hours. The site had just been disked (Figures 1 and 2), leaving ground squirrels exposed to predators (Figure 3) and sufficiently desperate for food to climb trees. Many turkey vultures visited the site (Figure 4), probably to forage for animal remains following the disking. Other raptors also visited the site to pick over the upturned soil for prey items (Figures 5 through 7). Many mourning doves clung to the upturned clods of soil, attempting to blend in (Figure 8), and so did a flock of killdeer until the end of the day (Figure 9). I detected 19 species of wildlife during my brief visit, including 6 species with special status (Table 1). Figure 1. At Dublin project site, view towards Mount Diablo on 29 October 2018. Except for a small woodlot with a patch of grassland visible in the middle of the photo, the entire site had just been disked. Many turkey vultures foraged for animal remains, and several red-tailed hawks patrolled for ground squirrels left exposed by the disking. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1389 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 3 Figure 2. Soon after the site was disked, a tractor is parked in the woodlot, view south, 29 October 2018. Figure 3. A California ground squirrel forages amidst disked fields for At Dublin commercial and residential development, 29 October 2018. Several red-tailed hawks picked off squirrels exposed by the disking. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1390 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 4 Figure 4. One of numerous turkey vultures foraging for animal remains over the disked fields proposed for At Dublin commercial and residential development, 29 October 2018. Figure 5. An American kestrel grabs a beetle while a Say’s phoebe watches on disked fields proposed for At Dublin commercial and residential development, 29 October 2018. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1391 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5 Figure 6. An American kestrel settles in for the evening near the woodlot on the site proposed for At Dublin commercial and residential development, 29 October 2018. Figure 7. A northern harrier heads toward evening refuge at the woodlot on the site of the proposed At Dublin project, 29 October 2018. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1392 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 6 Figure 8. One of many mourning doves hiding amidst the upturned clods of soil on the disked site of the proposed At Dublin project, 29 October 2018. Figure 9. A flock of killdeer fly off of the disked fields of the site of the proposed At Dublin commercial and residential development, 29 October 2018. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1393 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 7 Table 1. Wildlife species I observed on site on 29 October 2018. Species Scientific name Status1 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus California gull Larus californicus TWL Turkey vulture Cathartes aura CDFW 3503.5 Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis CDFW 3503.5 Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus CDFW 3503.5 Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, CDFW 3503.5 American kestrel Falco sparverius CDFW 3503.5 Mourning dove Zenaita macroura Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Exotic Rock pigeon Columba livea Exotic Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans European starling Sturnus vulgaris Exotic American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus House finch Carpodacus mexicanus California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi 1 Listed as CDFW 3503.5 = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), TWL = Taxa to Watch List, and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priority 3 (Shuford and Gardali 2008). BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Thirty special-status species of wildlife have potential for using the site of the proposed project (Table 2). One should not expect to see all of these species on site at any given time, but over time they all likely use the site. Eleven of the species have been detected on site, 8 having been reported on eBird, 2 having been seen by myself, and another – golden eagle -- having been recorded by GPS transmitters placed on birds by Doug Bell as part of a study he and I have been performing since 2012. It should be noted, also, that the timing of WRA’s site visit would have prevented detection of Swainson’s hawk, a species that migrates to Mexico over the winter months. Nor did WRA perform any surveys that could have detected bat species. Among other fallacious arguments, the EIR dismisses project impacts on 30 special- status species of wildlife by misleadingly pigeon-holing species into narrow portions of the environment, and then claiming those portions of the environment are not present on the site. The following are my comments on arguments used for some of the species at issue. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1394 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 8 Table 2. Species reported on eBird (https://eBird.org) on or near the proposed project site. Species Scientific name Status1 Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus TWL eBird nearby California gull Larus californicus TWL eBird nearby Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CE On site, eBird Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP eBird nearby Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis CDFW 3503.5 On site, WRA Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis CDFW 3503.5, TWL eBird nearby Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni BCC, CT eBird nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus CDFW 3503.5 On site, WRA Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus CDFW 3503.5, TWL eBird nearby Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi CDFW 3503.5, TWL eBird nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, CDFW 3503.5 eBird nearby White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, TWL On site, eBird American kestrel Falco sparverius CDFW 3503.5 On site, WRA Merlin Falco columbarius CDFW 3503.5, TWL eBird nearby Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus CDFW 3503.5, TWL eBird nearby Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP eBird nearby Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2 On site, eBird Great horned owl Bubo virginianus CDFW 3503.5 eBird nearby Barn owl Tyto alba CDFW 3503.5 eBird nearby Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC eBird nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 On site, eBird Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC eBird nearby Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus SSC3 eBird nearby Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa SSC3 eBird nearby Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 eBird nearby Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC1 On site, eBird Pallid bat Antrozous palllidus SSC Geographic range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC Geographic range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG Geographic range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC Geographic range 1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CE or CT = California endangered or threatened, 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), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1395 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 9 Burrowing owl The site of the proposed project has a documented history of supporting burrowing owls. WRA (2018:24) concludes “Burrowing owls were documented within the Project Area (CNDDB occurrence number 671) in 2004 and 2009.” However, burrowing owls have been additionally reported on site in other years in postings to eBird (Figures 10 and 11). Figure 10. Burrowing owls (blue symbols) have been reported on site on eBird, including breeding adults with chicks. Had the site not been disked prior to my site visit, I likely would have detected burrowing owls on site. Given that ground squirrels survived the disking, it is likely the squirrel population would recover if left undisturbed. Burrowing owls would then return to the site, using ground squirrel burrows as nesting and refuge sites, and sharing predator vigilance and alarm-calling with the squirrels. WRA (2018:33) is incorrect on a critical determination regarding potential impacts to burrowing owls, “As determined during the December 7, 2017 site survey, the project site is not currently inhabited by this species.” No such determination can be consistent with the CDFW (2012) guidelines on burrowing owl detection surveys, not without having met the standards of the guidelines (Table 3). The only survey performed would have been suitable for a habitat survey, but no detection surveys were performed. One cannot determine burrowing owls absent without first having performed detection surveys. The EIR needs to be revised so that it includes the results of detection surveys that meet the standards of CDFW (2012). 5.2 Packet Pg. 1396 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 10 Figure 11. eBird records of burrowing owls on the proposed project site, made by individuals I regard as highly competent. Lenihan is a professional wildlife biologist. Also note that Lenihan’s record includes a flock of tricolored blackbirds, a species recently listed as Threatened by the federal government. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1397 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 11 Table 3. Assessment of whether 2017 site visit (WRA 2018) achieved the standards in CDFW’s (2012) recommended survey protocol. Standards are numbered to match those in CDFW (2012). Standard in CDFW (2012) Assessment of surveys performed in 2008 Was the standard met? Minimum qualifications of biologists performing surveys and impact assessments (1) Familiarity with the species and local ecology No explanation demonstrating familiarity with burrowing owl ecology No (2) Experience conducting habitat assessments and breeding and non-breeding season surveys No description of experience was provided No (3) Familiarity with regulatory statutes, scientific research and conservation related to burrowing owls No indication of familiarity with scientific research or conservation related to burrowing owls No (4) Experience with analyzing impacts on burrowing owls No summary of such experience No Habitat assessment (1) Conduct at least 1 visit covering entire site and offsite buffer to 150 m One visit was made, but no methodological detail provided No (2) Prior to site visit, compile relevant biological information on site and surrounding area No compilation reported No (3) Check available sources for occurrence records I cannot verify that sources were checked No (4) Identify vegetation cover potentially supporting burrowing owls on site and vicinity Summaries of vegetation only crudely reported No (5a) Describe project and timeline of activities No (5b) Regional setting map showing project location Yes (5c) Detailed map with project footprint, topography, landscape and potential vegetation-altering activities Yes (5d) Biological setting including location, acreage, terrain, soils, geography, hydrology, land use and management history Some of this provided, most not No (5e) Analysis of relevant historical information concerning burrowing owl use or occupancy No, and there was no evidence that local people were interviewed about burrowing owl use of the site or area No (5f) Vegetation cover and height typical of temporal and spatial scales relevant to the assessment Only crude reporting provided No (5g) Presence of burrowing owl individuals, pairs or sign Yes (5h) Presence of suitable burrows or burrow surrogates Yes 5.2 Packet Pg. 1398 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 12 Standard in CDFW (2012) Assessment of surveys performed in 2008 Was the standard met? Breeding season surveys Perform 4 surveys separated by at least 3 weeks Not performed No 1 survey between 15 February and 15 April Not performed No 2-3 surveys between 15 April and 15 July Not performed No 1 survey following June 15 Not performed No Walk transects spaced 7 m to 20 m apart Not performed No Scan entire viewable area using binoculars at start of each transect and at 100 m intervals Not performed No Record all potential burrow locations determined by presence of owls or sign Not performed No Survey when temperature >20° C (68° F), winds <12 km/hr, and cloud cover <75% Not performed No Survey between dawn and 10:00 hours or within 2 hours before sunset Not performed No Identify and discuss any adverse conditions such as disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance Not performed No Survey several years where activities will be ongoing, annual or start-and-stop to cover high nest site fidelity Not performed No Reporting should include: (1) Survey dates with start and end times and weather conditions Not performed No (2) Qualifications of surveyor(s) Not performed No (3) Discussion of how survey timing affected comprehensiveness and detection probability Not performed No (4) Description of survey methods including point count dispersal and duration Not performed No (5) Description and justification of the area surveyed Not performed No (6) Numbers of nestlings or juveniles associated with each pair and whether adults were banded or marked Not performed No 5.2 Packet Pg. 1399 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 13 Standard in CDFW (2012) Assessment of surveys performed in 2008 Was the standard met? (7) Descriptions of behaviors of burrowing owls observed Not performed No (8) List of possible burrowing owl predators in the area, including any signs of predation of burrowing owls Not performed No (9) Detailed map showing all burrowing owl locations and potential or occupied burrows Not performed No (10) Signed field forms, photos, etc. Not performed No (11) Recent color photos of project site Not performed No (12) Copies of CNDDB field forms Not performed No 5.2 Packet Pg. 1400 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 14 Tricolored blackbird According to WRA (2018:App. B), the occurrence potential of tricolored blackbirds is “Unlikely. The Project Area does not contain or is not adjacent to any freshwater. There is no presence of riparian thickets for nesting.” However, eBird records refute WRA’s determination (Figure 12). Figure 12. eBird record of tricolored blackbirds on the site of the proposed At Dublin project. Having observed tricolored blackbirds during my twenty years of research studies in the nearby Altamont Pass, I can also testify that tricolored blackbirds forage over grasslands, and are not restricted to riparian thickets as claimed by WRA. I have many times documented tricolored blackbirds foraging in grasslands (Figure 13). Figure 13. Tricolored blackbirds foraging on grasslands a few miles east of the proposed project site in May 2016. Bald eagle According to WRA (2018:App. B), the occurrence potential of bald eagle is “Unlikely. The Project Area is not near any lake or reservoir habitat that could support a nesting pair. This species may occasionally fly through the Project Area by is highly unlikely to 5.2 Packet Pg. 1401 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 15 nest there.” Again, WRA presents a false habitat requirement for a special-status species. I often record bald eagles foraging over the grasslands of the Altamont Pass. Bald eagles hunt ground squirrels on grasslands just like golden eagles do. And again, eBird includes a record that refutes WRA (Figure 14). Figure 14. eBird record of bald eagle on the site of the proposed At Dublin project. Golden eagle According to WRA (2018:App. B), the occurrence potential of golden eagle is “Unlikely. The Project Area does not contain any large trees, cliff walls, or other favorable nesting areas.” WRA presents yet another false habitat narrative. Having studied golden eagles for 20 years in the nearby Altamont Pass, and having participated with the GPS tracking of 28 golden eagles since 2012, I can testify with high confidence that golden eagles are not restricted to cliff walls. Nesting cannot succeed without successful foraging, and foraging is not performed over cliff walls or large trees, but rather over grasslands such as the grasslands on the site of the proposed project. In fact, some of our GPS-transmittered golden eagles have returned positions directly over the project site (Figure 15). Golden eagles use the project site. Figure 15. Positions of golden eagles tracked by GPS transmitter in a study performed by Doug Bell and myself 2012 through the present time. The project site is in the center of the image, and each color of dot represents a different golden eagle. Golden eagles generally avoid anthropogenic landscapes, but when they visit them they do so by targeting open spaces such as the project site. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1402 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 16 Prairie falcon According to WRA (2018:App. B), the occurrence potential of prairie falcon is “Unlikely. The Project Area contains open terrain that could be used for foraging. However, there are no cliffs for breeding site within or nearby the Project Area.” As I pointed out earlier, breeding will not be successful without sufficient foraging habitat. Destruction of foraging habitat depletes the capacity for breeding in the local area, thereby diminishing the local population. WRA’s conclusion is misleading and incorrect. Peregrine falcon WRA applies the same fallacious argument used to dismiss project impacts on prairie falcon. Peregrine falcons can and will forage on the project site, and this foraging supports breeding. Ferruginous hawk According to WRA (2018:App. B), the occurrence potential of ferruginous hawk is “Unlikely. The Project Area provides marginal foraging habitat for wintering birds; however this species does not breed in the region.” This conclusion is misleading. It is well known that ferruginous hawks breed elsewhere, and that they migrate to central California for foraging over the winter months. Again, without successful foraging, there will not be successful breeding. WRA claims the foraging habitat is marginal at the project site, but WRA provides no evidence in support of this claim. In fact, ferruginous hawks regularly forage over grasslands (Figure 16) including on patches of grassland surrounded by residential (Figure 17). Figure 16. Ferruginous hawk on a ground squirrel caught in annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass, just east of the site of the proposed At Dublin project. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1403 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 17 Figure 17. Ferruginous hawk grabs into a pocket gopher mound while foraging on a field of similar vegetation cover and residential and commercial surroundings as at the proposed project site. Swainson’s hawk According to WRA (2018:App. B), the occurrence potential of Swainson’s hawk is “Unlikely. The Project Area is not located within large stretches of flat land that this species typically uses for breeding. The Project Area is also west of this species’ typical breeding range in the Central Valley. This species may occasionally pass through the Project Area during migration.” Having studied Swainson’s hawks for nearly 30 years, I can conclude with confidence that Swainson’s hawks expanded their known breeding range west nearly to the proposed project site. Three years ago I recorded Swainson’s hawks breeding in the Altamont Pass, but my colleagues and I have recorded regular foraging visits to the Altamont Pass and north of Livermore since 2006. White-tailed kite WRA (2018:App. B) detected white-tailed kite on the site of the proposed project. eBird records also exist for this species on the project site (Figure 18) and I detected white- tailed kites less than a mile away (Figure 19). White-tailed kites are California Fully Protected, and in need of more mitigation than mere preconstruction surveys. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1404 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 18 Figure 18. eBird occurrence records of white-tailed kites on the project site. Figure 19. A white-tailed kite – a California Fully Protected species – forages within 1 mile of the site of the proposed project on 14 April 2018. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1405 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 19 Loggerhead shrike Given moderate potential to occur (WRA 2018:App. B), eBird again refutes the EIR (Figure 20). The patch of woodland savannah in the center of the project site is especially likely to host loggerhead shrikes at the present time. Figure 20. Location of eBird posting of a loggerhead shrike sighting on the site of the proposed project. WILDIFE MOVEMENT The EIR presents a misleading assessment of the project’s likely impacts on wildlife movement within the region. According to WRA (2018:30), “Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas typically occurs via wildlife movement corridors.” While this is true, it is also true that wildlife move outside of movement corridors, which are actually defined as human constructs intended to diminish the impacts of habitat fragmentation (Smallwood 2015). If wildlife movement was restricted to natural corridors, then prey species would too often encounter their predators, and territorial animals would too often encounter each other in dangerous defense. Using a thermal- imaging camera from many vantage points for nearly 1,000 hours at night, I have watched terrestrial animals moving across slopes and other topography that would not normally be characterized as corridors. WRA assesses project impacts on wildlife movement against a false CEQA standard. The statement, “Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas typically occurs via wildlife movement corridors,” implies that the only wildlife movement that matters to a CEQA assessment is that which occurs along movement corridors. 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 5.2 Packet Pg. 1406 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 20 or migratory wildlife corridors…” The primary phrase of the standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor or a stream course. WRA (2018:30) further claims that “The primary function of wildlife corridors is to connect two larger habitat blocks, also referred to as core habitat areas…,” and “The Project Area does not fall within any previously identified wildlife corridors or natural habitat blocks…” The function to which WRA refers is intended by humans when planning on leaving narrow strips of land to be used as corridors by terrestrial wildlife (Smallwood 2015). WRA misapplies human constructs, such as the corridor concept, to natural wildlife movement. This misapplied construct is also applied only to species of wildlife that walk, slither, or crawl, but it neglects the many species of wildlife that fly. Volant species, while able to fly during migration, dispersal, foraging patrols, or territory maintenance, require stop-over habitat. A project that removes stop-over habitat will interfere with the ability of many volant species of wildlife to move across the region. Wildlife movement in a region is often diffuse rather than channeled (Runge et al. 2014, Taylor et al. 2011) unless anthropogenic changes have forced channeling or targeting of “island” patches of habitat (Smallwood 2015). Wildlife movement includes stop-over habitat used by birds and bats (Taylor et al. 2011), staging habitat (Warnock 2010), and crossover habitat used by nonvolant wildlife during dispersal, migration or home range patrol. Many species of wildlife likely use the site of the proposed project for movement across the region, incluging great egrets (Figure 8) and California gulls. The project would cut wildlife off from stop-over and staging habitat, and would therefore interfere with wildlife movement in the region. TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE Kimley-Horn (2018a:16-46) predicts net new daily project trips will be 19,327 on weekdays and 20,314 on Saturdays, which together would average 19,492 cars and trucks. That is a lot of traffic for a project, and this traffic will result in the deaths of thousands of animals along Tassajara Boulevard, North Dublin Blvd., Highway 580, and many other roads on which traffic will increasingly encounter wildlife trying to move to vital habitat areas in the region. The majority of these traffic-caused deaths will located well beyond the project’s footprint. A fundamental shortfall of the EIR is its failure to analyze the impacts of the project’s added road traffic on special-status species of wildlife, including species such as California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and American badgers (Taxidea taxus) that, regardless of whether they live on the site, must cross roadways that will experience increased traffic volume caused by this project. The EIR provides no analysis of impacts on wildlife that will be caused by increased traffic on roadways servicing the project. Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 5.2 Packet Pg. 1407 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 21 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. Over the past year I have recorded hundreds of roadkill wildlife in the Altamont Pass and along roads to the north (Vasco Road). A recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County (only a few miles east-northeast of the project site), California, revealed 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors were similar to those for carcass persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011). Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al. 2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic on east Alameda County roads would similarly result in intense local impacts on wildlife. Many thousands of roadkill wildlife incidents have been reported to the UC Davis Road Ecology Center (Shilling et al. 2017). In 2017, one of the major hotspots of road-killed wildlife overlaps the project site (Shilling et al. 2017). In fact, the wildlife roadkill hotspot in the project area was found to be statistically highly significant (see Figure 5 of Shilling et al. 2017). Even during my brief visit I encountered a roadkilled opossum at the site of the proposed project (Figure 21). The costs to drivers is also high (Shilling et al. 22017). Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). But not one word of traffic-related impacts appears in the EIR – a gross shortfall of the CEQA review. Figure 21. An opossum killed on the 580 exit to Tassajara Boulevard, 29 October 2018. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1408 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 22 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The EIR presents a flawed cumulative impacts analysis, beginning with a highly restricted scope of analysis. According to WRA (2018:37), “The geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to biological resources includes the City of Dublin, which contains suitable and occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and whitetailed Kite.” Not only is the scope constrained geographically to a political boundary rather than an environmental boundary that makes sense, but WRA implies that the project will contribute to cumulative impacts to special-status species because these species occur elsewhere in the City. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of CEQA, and if occurrence elsewhere was the standard, then why bother with a cumulative effects analysis? Another false CEQA standard appears in WRA (2018:37), “Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants (Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover) and special-status wildlife (western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite), such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to similar standard mitigation. As such, cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.” In essence, the EIR implies that cumulative impacts are really residual impacts left over by inadequate project mitigation. If this was the case, then CEQA would not require assessment and mitigation for cumulative effects. The EIR needs to be revised to appropriately assess cumulative impacts and to mitigate cumulative effects. MITIGATION MEASURES Only two measures are proposed for mitigating project impacts on special-status species of wildlife, and neither measure includes compensation for impacts in any form. MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys & Burrow Exclusion The EIR 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 known occurrences of burrowing owl on the project site, a detection survey effort is 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. Please also note that CDFW (2012:10) does not regard burrow exclusion as mitigation: “Exclusion in and of itself is not a take avoidance, minimization or mitigation method. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1409 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 23 Eviction of burrowing owls is a potentially significant impact under CEQA.” The EIR needs to be revised to avoid reliance on a practice seen as harmful to the species. MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Birds Preconstruction Surveys Similar to the burrowing owl measure, MM BIO-1.3 promises preconstruction breeding bird surveys. Again, take-preconstruction surveys, although they should be done, are no substitute for detection surveys in avoiding take. Detection surveys are needed to point those performing preconstruction surveys in the right direction. Working under pressure, just ahead of the tractor blade, biologists performing preconstruction surveys are unlikely to find more than a fraction of bird nests, which can be very cryptic. Even killdeer nests, which are constructed on open ground, can be nearly impossible to see in a hurry because they are placed and colored to blend in (Figure 22). Detection surveys are also needed to inform mitigation measures. Figure 22. Killdeer nest in Alameda County, 2012. Up close the eggs can be seen, but from a standing position they are very difficult to detect. What is needed is appropriate detection surveys for each special-status species, but these should also inform a revised EIR. Preconstruction surveys are also needed, but these should follow appropriate detection surveys. Additionally, measures are needed to minimize and reduce traffic mortality on wildlife and compensatory mitigation is needed for direct and cumulative impacts caused by habitat fragmentation. Thank you for your attention, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1410 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 24 REFERENCES CITED Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Kimley-Horn. 2018a. At Dublin Draft EIR. State Clearinghouse No. 2018012027. City of Dublin, California. Kimley-Horn. 2018b. At Dublin Final EIR. State Clearinghouse No. 2018012027. City of Dublin, California. Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771. Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237. Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How Long Do the Dead Survive on the Road? Carcass Persistence Probability and Implications for Road-Kill Monitoring Surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Shilling, F., D. Waetjen, and K. Harrold. 2017. Impact of Wildlife-Vehicle Conflict on California Drivers and Animals. https://roadecology.ucdavis.edu/files/ content/projects/CROS-CHIPs_Hotspots_2017_Report_fin.pdf 5.2 Packet Pg. 1411 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 25 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. 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. 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. Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054. Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626. WRA. 2018. Biological Resources Assessment, At Dublin Development Project (APNs: 985-52-25, 985-52-24, 985-51-6, 985-51-5), Dublin, Alameda County, California. Report to Kimley-Horn, San Jose, California. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1412 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 5.2 Packet Pg. 1413 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1414 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 5.2 Packet Pg. 1415 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1416 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 5.2 Packet Pg. 1417 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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 5.2 Packet Pg. 1418 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 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. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1419 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262-5199 Linda C. Klein 415.262.5130 lklein@coxcastle.com www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco October 30, 2018 VIA E-MAIL AMY.MILLION@DUBLIN.CA.GOV Ms. Amy Million Principal Planner, City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Clarifications for AT Dublin’s EIR Dear Ms. Million: This letter, on behalf of the AT Dublin Project (“Project”) applicant (“Shea”), supplements the City of Dublin’s (“City”) response to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (the “Board”) request for the City to review the hydro-modification features (“HM”) for Planning Areas (“PAs”) 2 and 3 and determine whether additional HM is required. This letter also suggests a minor clarification to mitigation measure TR-1.1. 1. Stormwater Treatment in PA-2 and PA-3 As disclosed in the EIR, PA-2 and PA-3 are designed to drain to a regional water quality detention basin (the “Regional Basin”), which the City constructed pursuant to Board Order No. R2-2003-0031 (“Dublin Ranch Order”). As discussed below, the Regional Basin was designed to provide sufficient HM for the parcels it serves (which financed the Regional Basin’s construction). a. The Dublin Ranch Order The Board adopted the Dublin Ranch Order to provide waste discharge requirements (“WDRs”) for the Dublin Ranch Project. Prior to adoption of the Dublin Ranch Order, the applicants submitted a stormwater management plan for Dublin Ranch, which was ultimately finalized as the Revised Stormwater Management Plan (“SWMP”) for Dublin Ranch, City of Dublin, California. The Dublin Ranch SWMP provided for construction of a regional water quality pond that would “capture and treat stormwater runoff from an area of approximately 708 acres” delineated in the SWMP (the “Dublin Ranch Area”). PA-2 and PA-3 are in the Dublin Ranch Area. File No. 77789 5.2 Packet Pg. 1420 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Ms. Amy Million October 30, 2018 Page 2 The Board reviewed the submitted Dublin Ranch SWMP and determined it was consistent with the requirements of Order No. R2-2003-021, NPDES Permit CAS0029831 (the “2003 Stormwater Permit”), the NPDES Permit for the City of Dublin’s municipal stormwater system in place at the time the Board adopted the Dublin Ranch Order. Finding number 20 of the Dublin Ranch Order states: “The Discharger has submitted a SWMP for its project that, together with the additional submittals required under this Order, is consistent with the requirements of NPDES Permit CAS0029831, Provision C.3, the permit provisions addressing new and redevelopment projects.” In 2009, CAS0029831 (“2003 Stormwater Permit”) was superseded by Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, which was revised in November 2011 (“2009 Stormwater Permit”). In 2015, the 2009 Stormwater Permit was superseded by Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit CAS612008 (“2015 Stormwater Permit”). Nevertheless, no order has superseded the Dublin Ranch Order, which remains in effect. Compliance with the Dublin Ranch Order thus satisfies the Dublin Ranch Area’s stormwater treatment requirements. b. Prior City Response Regarding the Continued Applicability of the Dublin Ranch Order In addition to PA-2 and PA-3, the Dublin Ranch Order covers the western portion of property proposed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals for the development of 1.2 million square feet of medical campus and commercial uses (the “Kaiser Project”). The Kaiser Project is located approximately 0.7 miles west of the AT Dublin Project. The City released the draft environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Kaiser Project in January 2016. The Zone 7 Water Agency commented on the Kaiser Project Draft EIR, asking how the Kaiser Project would comply with the 2009 Stormwater Permit’s C.3 requirements. In the Final EIR for the Kaiser Project, the City responded by confirming that the Regional Basin provided the required stormwater treatment for the western portion of the Kaiser Project site. As the City noted in its response, the Regional Basin “was designed to accept and treat post-construction stormwater runoff from approximately two-thirds of the [Kaiser] project site (western portion)” and therefore, “stormwater runoff from the western portion of the [Kaiser] project site will not need to be treated and can be discharged directly into the public system.” (Kaiser Project Final EIR at pp. 3-41–3-42.) In the context of the Kaiser Project, the City took the position that the Dublin Ranch Order already authorized a SWMP for this area that complies with all applicable NPDES requirements, and therefore that no additional treatment or HM is required for the portion of the project that lies within the SWMP area. Comments with respect to errata on the Kaiser Project EIR also noted that the City specifically determined that HM would not be required for the Kaiser Project. Likewise, no additional treatment or HM should be required for the portions of the AT Dublin project that are in the SWMP area (i.e., PA-2 and PA-3). 5.2 Packet Pg. 1421 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Ms. Amy Million October 30, 2018 Page 3 c. The 2015 Stormwater Permit Is Substantially Similar to the 2003 Stormwater Permit Nevertheless, even if the 2015 Stormwater Permit C.3 requirements applied, the Regional Basin likely meets those requirements for the Dublin Ranch Area. The 2003 Stormwater Permit provides performance standards to “prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects.” The terms of the 2015 Stormwater Permit are similar to the 2003 Stormwater Permit. While the term “LID source control” is not used in the 2003 Stormwater Permit, many of the elements of required measures in that permit overlap with those required by the 2015 Stormwater Permit (e.g. requirements to implement source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff, and to implement HM). Further, the 2015 Stormwater Permit continues to allow for LID treatment and regional HM controls at an offsite facility, such as the Regional Basin, rather than on site. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the City clarify its response to the Board’s comment by adding that PA-2 and PA-3 remain subject to the Dublin Ranch Order and need not provide additional HM. 2. Transportation Mitigation Measure TR-1.1 Mitigation Measure TR-1.1 (page 16-51 of the draft Project EIR) is designed to reduce potential impacts from queue spillback that could occur at the proposed mid-block intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, between PA-1 and PA-2A. As proposed, TR-1.1 allows Shea to submit additional traffic analysis after full Project buildout that analyzes the traffic signal timing and turn movement restrictions to ensure they are working as planned. For the reasons stated in the draft Project EIR, TR-1.1 would mitigate the potential operational impact at the proposed intersection to a less-than-significant level. To increase the effectiveness of TR-1.1, Shea proposes that the additional analysis be allowed to begin at the time PA-1 and PA-2A, which are the planning areas adjacent to the intersection at issue, are complete. With this clarification, TR-1.1 would be revised as follows: At any such time after full build‐out and first occupancy of PA 1 or PA 2A and the signal is operational of the project, the applicant may submit additional traffic analysis to the city that would be independently verified, demonstrating that the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no longer required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. As clarified, Shea could give the City feedback on the intersection’s performance earlier in the development process. This information could be used by the City to refine intersection operations during Project development in addition to after full buildout. 5.2 Packet Pg. 1422 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) Ms. Amy Million October 30, 2018 Page 4 3. Conclusion We look forward to working with the City on the Project and would be happy to provide additional material if needed. Respectfully submitted, Linda C. Klein LXK 077789\10176128v4 5.2 Packet Pg. 1423 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1424 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1425 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1426 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1427 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1428 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1429 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1430 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1431 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1432 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1433 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1434 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1435 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1436 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1437 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1438 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1439 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1440 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1441 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1442 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1443 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1444 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1445 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1446 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1447 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1448 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1449 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1450 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1451 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1452 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1453 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1454 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1455 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1456 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1457 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1458 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1459 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1460 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1461 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1462 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1463 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1464 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1465 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1466 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1467 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1468 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1469 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1470 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1471 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1472 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1473 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1474 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1475 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1476 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1477 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1478 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1479 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1480 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1481 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1482 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1483 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1484 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1485 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1486 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1487 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1488 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1489 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1490 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1491 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1492 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1493 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1494 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1495 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1496 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1497 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1498 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1499 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1500 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing) 5.2 Packet Pg. 1501 Communication: SB 343 - Item 5.1 Comment Letters (Public Hearing)