HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 99-20 Adopting an Initial Study Negative Declaration for the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (2030 and Beyond)Reso No. 99-20, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/15/2020 Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2030 AND BEYOND
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 167-10 approving the City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan on November 16, 2010 establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals
for 2020; and
WHEREAS, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a city may prepare a
qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or Climate Action Plan to evaluate a community’s cumulative
impact due to GHG emissions from future planned development; and
WHEREAS, if a project is consistent with an adopted, qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
or Climate Action Plan, the Strategy/Plan can be used as a basis for determining that the project
would have a less than significant impact on a community’s cumulative GHG emissions under
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 177-13 approving the City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan Update on October 15, 2013 to use as a basis for determining that a future
project that was consistent with the adopted Climate Action Plan Update would have a less than
significant impact on Dublin’s cumulative GHG emissions under CEQA through 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is on track to meet the 2020 GHG reduction goals
established by the Plans; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to extend the
State’s commitment to GHG emissions reductions by tightening the target to 40% below 1990
levels by 2030; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, Governor Brown adopted Executive Order (EO) B-55-18 setting a
Statewide goal of reaching carbon neutrality by no later than 2045; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the City Council provided consensus to align the City’s
future Climate Action Plan with both SB 32 and EO B-55-18 goals and consensus to proceed with
the draft strategies and measures to achieve those goals; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond establishes the following targets:
1. Reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030
2. Reach carbon neutrality by 2045; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond contains 22 measures grouped into
the five strategies listed below to reduce GHG emissions by roughly 73,000 metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalent by 2030:
1. 100% Renewable and Carbon-Free Electricity
2. Building Efficiency and Electrification
Reso No. 99-20, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/15/2020 Page 2 of 3
3. Sustainable Mobility and Land Use
4. Material and Waste Management
5. Municipal Leadership; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond will result in
co-benefits in the following areas: economic growth, reduced traffic congestion, improved public
health, healthier ecosystems, robust landscapes, carbon sequestration, enhanced resilience,
equity and inclusion, community leadership and partnerships, and cutting-edge technologies; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA certain projects are required to be reviewed for
environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond;
and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study it was determined that there was no
substantial evidence that the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond would have a significant
adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared for the Climate Action Plan
2030 and Beyond and circulated for public review from July 24, 2020 through August 24, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received four comment letters and one comment email
during the public review period none of which raised concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action
Plan 2030 and Beyond and related Negative Declaration on September 15, 2020; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Climate Action
Plan 2030 and Beyond and related Negative Declaration on September 15, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider the Negative Declaration and the
Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond, all said reports, recommendations, and testimony herein
and set forth prior to making its decision on the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute
the record of proceedings for the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond is the City of Dublin
Clerk’s Office, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt
the Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution, based on the following findings:
Reso No. 99-20, Item 6.1, Adopted 09/15/2020 Page 3 of 3
1. The City Council considered the Negative Declaration together with the comments
received during the public review process, attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution,
prior to taking action on the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond.
2. The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no
substantial evident that the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond will have a significant
effect on the environment.
3. The Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to
the potential environmental effects of the Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond.
4. The Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of September 2020, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Goel, Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai and Mayor Haubert
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond
Initial Study – Negative Declaration
prepared for
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, #303
Oakland, California 94612
July 2020
Table of Contents
Initial Study – Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................... 1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 1
4. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................................. 1
6. Existing Setting .................................................................................................................... 1
7. General Plan Designation .................................................................................................... 9
8. Zoning.................................................................................................................................. 9
9. Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 9
10. Required Approvals ...........................................................................................................12
11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ..................................................................................12
12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................12
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .........................................................................................13
Determination ......................................................................................................................................13
Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................15
1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................15
2 Agriculture and Forest Resources .....................................................................................19
3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................21
4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................27
5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................31
6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................33
7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................35
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................39
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................41
10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................45
11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................49
12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................51
13 Noise .................................................................................................................................53
14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................55
15 Public Services ...................................................................................................................57
16 Recreation .........................................................................................................................59
17 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................61
18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................63
19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................65
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond
ii
20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................67
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................69
References ............................................................................................................................................71
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................71
List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................73
Tables
Table 1 Summary of CAP 2030 GHG Emissions Targets and Gaps ................................................10
Table 2 CAP 2030 Reduction Measure Quantification (MT CO2e) .................................................11
Table 3 Sources, Health Effects, and Typical Controls Associated with Criteria Pollutants ..........22
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3
Initial Study
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study
1. Project Title
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Rebecca Parnes, Environmental Technician
(925) 833-6630
4. Project Location
The City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan (CAP 2030) applies to all areas within the Dublin City limits.
Dublin is located in Alameda County, more specifically in the eastern Alameda County region known
as the Tri-Valley area. Dublin covers approximately 14.59 square miles and is generally bounded by
the City of San Ramon to the north, unincorporated community of Castro Valley to the west, the City
of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Livermore to the east (City of Dublin n.d.). Additionally,
the City is approximately 14 miles east of the San Francisco Bay, 23 miles southeast of Oakland, and
30 miles northeast of San Jose.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
6. Existing Setting
Dublin is a largely suburban community accessible via Interstate 680 (I-680) from north and south
and Interstate 580 (I-580) from east and west. Figure 1 shows the regional location and Figure 2
shows the project location. Dublin’s well-planned development over the last 20 years has positioned
the community to become one of California’s fastest growing cities (11th fastest in the United States)
and has earned the rank of best city to live in California by Money Magazine 2019. (The U.S. Census
Bureau 2018). Dublin receives approximately 19 inches of rain annually with a July average high
temperature of 84°F and a January average low temperature of 39°F (Sperling’s Best Places n.d.).
Dublin is served by two Bay Area Rapid Transit stations (Dublin/Pleasanton station and West
Dublin/Pleasanton station) as well as the Tri-Valley Wheels (Wheels), which provides bus and
paratransit services from Dublin, through Pleasanton, Livermore, and portions of unincorporated
Alameda County.
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
2
Figure 1 Regional Location
Initial Study
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Location
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
4
The history of Dublin dates back to 1772; however, the land was not developed until approximately
1835 (City of Dublin n.d.). The City was officially incorporated in 1982. Dublin is actively engaged in
addressing climate change, sustainability, and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In
October 2010, Dublin adopted the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP 2020) as part of the
Alameda County Climate Protection Project (ACCPP). The ACCPP was launched by the Local
Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) in partnership with the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority & Recycling Board and the Alameda County Conference of Mayors (City of Dublin 2010).
The CAP 2020 included a baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory based on 2005 data
and forecast GHG emissions in 2020. In 2013, the City adopted an update of the Climate Action Plan
(CAP 2020 Update). The CAP 2020 Update serves as the City of Dublin’s qualified GHG Reduction
Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for analysis of impacts of GHG
emissions and climate change. The CAP 2030 assessed herein builds upon the goals of the CAP 2020
and CAP 2020 Update and is based upon a more recent (2015) GHG emissions inventory for Dublin.
Dublin Climate Action Planning Background
The CAP 2020 and CAP 2020 Update serve as foundations for the CAP 2030. They were adopted by
City Council in 2010 and 2013, respectively, to provide guiding documentation that outlines the
course of action for identifying and implementing strategies to achieve citywide reductions in GHG
emissions for both municipal and community operations. The CAP 2020 was designed to:
Present baseline emissions of the 2005 inventory
Forecast emissions through 2020 relative to statewide goals
Establish a GHG emissions reduction target of 20 percent below the 2020 forecast business as
usual emissions
Provide a roadmap for achieving statewide GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 to
demonstrate consistency with statewide targets set forth in AB 32
Document current implementation strategies effective since 2005 and how these will help
achieve specific citywide objectives
Streamlining CEQA GHG emissions analyses for future development projects
The CAP 2020 included emissions reduction strategies in transportation and land use, energy, and
waste management for both the communitywide and municipal operation scopes. Examples of GHG
reducing measures included in the CAP 2020 include the creation of a Streetscape Master Plan,
implementation of bicycle parking requirements and a Bikeways Master Plan, reducing the solar
installation permitting fee, and reducing commercial waste. The CAP 2020 included 34 measures
adopted in plan or policy that were expected to help achieve 2020 targets.
In an effort to improve the CEQA streamlining functionality of the CAP 2020, the City developed an
updated inventory and CAP. In addition to providing updated 2010 emissions data and progress on
meeting previously established goals; the CAP adopted a more rigorous target for reducing GHG
emissions 15 percent below the 2010 inventory level by 2020 which exceeded the requirements of
AB 32. The CAP 2020 Update included the same three emission reduction strategies as the CAP
2020: transportation and land use, energy, and waste management. Within these, it included 45
reduction measures at the communitywide and municipal operation levels. Measures reflected only
those currently implemented or planned regulations and programs expected to have an impact
starting after 2010, therefore excluding some of the measures previously incorporated in the CAP
2020. New measures included a Green Fleet Policy for municipal vehicles, LEED silver requirements
Initial Study
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 5
for large municipal buildings, LED streetlighting requirements, and a communitywide reusable bag
ordinance. As part of the CAP 2020 Update, expected emissions reductions of measures were
revised based on the newer inventory data, activity data, and updated methodologies. The City of
Dublin has become more efficient and reduced per capita emissions from 8.3 MT CO2e per person in
2005 to 5.6 MT of CO2e per person in 2017. This equates to a 32% decrease below 2005 levels.
However, due to exceptionally high population growth (55%) overall mass emissions increased by
5% between 2005 and 2017. However, based on the forecast conducted in 2017, the City of Dublin
is expected to meet their 2020 goal. The actual 2020 emissions will be estimated once the complete
2020 dataset is available in late 2021.
State GHG Reduction Efforts
The following section summarizes California’s GHG emissions reduction efforts which the CAP 2030
is intended to be consistent with.
State Legislation and Guidance
The State of California considers GHG emissions and the impacts of climate change to be a serious
threat to the public health, environment, economic well-being, and natural resources of California,
and has taken an aggressive stance to mitigate the State’s impact on climate change through the
adoption of policies and legislation. The following summarizes the various State regulations which
have guided the development of CAP 2020 and now CAP 2030.
Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which identifies statewide
GHG emission reduction targets to achieve long-term climate stabilization as follows:
Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
In response to EO S-3-05, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) created the Climate
Action Team (CAT), which in March 2006 published the Climate Action Team Report (the “2006 CAT
Report”) (CalEPA 2006). The 2006 CAT Report identified a recommended list of strategies that the
State could pursue to reduce GHG emissions. These are strategies that could be implemented by
various State agencies to ensure that the emission reduction targets in EO S-3-05 are met and can
be met with existing authority of the State agencies. The strategies include the reduction of
passenger and light duty truck emissions, the reduction of idling times for diesel trucks, an overhaul
of shipping technology/infrastructure, increased use of alternative fuels, increased recycling, and
landfill methane capture, among others.
Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the
“California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32
codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires California
Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for
reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to
require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB
approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. The original Scoping Plan
was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
6
reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among
other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low
Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since
approval of the Scoping Plan.
In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan
update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to
reach post-2020 statewide goals. The update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the
“near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also
evaluated how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy
priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land
use (CARB 2017).
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental
issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March
2010, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines
for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted
guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the
assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. Specifically, Section
15183.5(b)(1)A-G of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations was amended to state that a
qualified GHG Reduction Plan, or Climate Action Plan, may be used for tiering and streamlining the
analysis of GHG emissions in subsequent CEQA project evaluation, provided that the GHG Reduction
Plan or CAP does the following:
Quantifies GHG emissions both existing and projected over a specific period of time, resulting
from activities within a defined geographical area
Establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse
gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable
Identifies and analyzes the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of
actions anticipated within the geographic area
Specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial
evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve
the specified emissions level
Establishes a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to
require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels
Requires adoption in a public process following environmental review
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 targets
by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from
passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the State’s 18 major
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS)
that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing
GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) were assigned targets of a 10 percent
Initial Study
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 7
reduction in GHG emissions from transportation sources from 2005 levels by 2020 and a 19 percent
reduction in GHG emissions from transportation sources from 2005 levels by 2035. The MTC and
ABAG adopted the Plan Bay Area 2040 in June 2017, which meets the requirements of SB 375.
Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15 established a statewide mid-term GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels
by 2030. Targets set beyond 2020 provide market certainty to foster investment and growth in
industries like clean energy.
Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, extending AB 32 by
requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other
provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping
Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the
continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program,
as well as implementation of recently adopted policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below). The
2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology,
and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017
Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it
recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds
consistent with statewide per capita goals of six metric tons (MT) CO2e by 2030 and two MT CO2e by
2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level
analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because
they include all emissions sectors in the State (CARB 2017).
Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a
comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the
strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels
The bill also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in
consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic
waste in landfills.
Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the
electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last
updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from
eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030,
and 100 percent by 2045.
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
8
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown issued EO B-55-18, which established a new statewide
goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This
goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB
1383, and SB 100. EO B-55-18 is not yet codified; however, there is currently a bill, AB 2832, going
through the State legislature to codify the State carbon neutrality target in EO B-55-18. While
California cities are not required to prepare a climate action plan or establish a city-specific GHG
emissions target, they are required to align with State GHG emissions targets by demonstrating a
reduction pathway and doing their fair share towards meeting such targets. In addition, a city must
prepare a CEQA-qualified CAP that is consistent with State targets in order to be able to streamline
future development CEQA GHG emissions analyses.
Specifically, the AEP Climate Change Committee recommends that CEQA GHG emissions analyses
evaluate project emissions in light of the trajectory of State climate change legislation and assess
their substantial progress toward achieving long-term reduction targets identified in available plans,
legislation, or EOs. Consistent with these recommendations, GHG emissions impacts under CEQA
are analyzed in terms of whether growth would impede substantial progress toward meeting the
reduction targets identified in SB 32 and EO B-55-18. As SB 32 is considered an interim target
toward meeting the 2045 State goal, consistency with SB 32 is considered to be contributing
substantial progress toward meeting the State’s long-term 2045 goals. Avoiding interference with
and making substantial progress toward these long-term State targets is important, as these targets
have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of meeting international targets that will
stabilize global climate change effects and avoid adverse environmental consequences.
Furthermore, a key aspect of a CEQA-qualified GHG reduction plan is provision of substantial
evidence that the identified target establishes a threshold where GHG emissions are not
cumulatively considerable. The AEP Beyond Newhall and 2020 white paper identifies this threshold
as being a local target that aligns with the statewide legislative targets. And in Center for Biological
Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildfire, the California Supreme Court suggested
regulatory consistency as a pathway to compliance by stating that a lead agency might assess
consistency with the State targets by evaluating for compliance with regulations designed to reduce
GHG emissions. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b), which
provides that a determination of an impact is not cumulatively considerable to the extent to which a
project complies with regulations or requirements implementing a statewide, regional, or local plan
to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions.
Finally, at this time, the State has codified a target of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990
emissions levels by 2030 (SB 32) and has developed the 2017 Scoping Plan to demonstrate how the
State will achieve the 2030 target and make substantial progress toward the 2050 goal of an 80
percent reduction in 1990 GHG emission levels set by EO S-3-05. EO B-55-18, which identifies a new
target of carbon neutrality by 2045, supersedes the goal established by EO S-3-05, though, again,
has not yet been codified.
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, California Natural Resources Agency has adopted
amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the
effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the
analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the
discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs
Initial Study
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 9
and climate change impacts. To date, a variety of air districts have adopted quantitative significance
thresholds for GHGs.
For more information on the Senate and Assembly Bills, Executive Orders, and reports discussed
above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites:
www.climatechange.ca.gov and www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.
7. General Plan Designation
The CAP 2030 would be implemented throughout Dublin and would occur in all General Plan
designations.
8. Zoning
The CAP 2030 would be implemented throughout Dublin in all zoning designations.
9. Description of Project
Dublin CAP 2030 (CEQA Proposed Project)
Since adoption of the City’s updated inventory and CAP in 2013, advances in climate science and
resiliency planning, new regulations (such as SB 100 and 2016 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards),
and new reduction measures and strategies have shaped an emergent need to update the City’s
CAP for a third time. The proposed CAP 2030 builds upon the CAP 2020 Update by forecasting
emissions for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2040 and 2045, consistent with current legislated targets and State
Executive Order goals and based upon the most recent GHG inventory which was performed in
2015. City measures and supporting actions for the CAP 2030 were developed by incorporating and
evaluating the effects of new regulations and identifying key sources necessary for emissions
reductions to meet the 2020, and 2030GHG reduction targets. The City measures and supporting
actions in the CAP 2030 will also place the City on a trajectory to meet the 2045 GHG reduction goal;
however additional revisions to the CAP and additional measures will be required in order for the
City to meet this long-term goal. The CAP 2020 Update primarily focused on transportation sector
because traffic is the primary GHG emission source in Dublin.
Compared with the CAP 2020 Update, the CAP 2030 puts more emphasis on building electrification
and efficiency. Measures from the CAP 2020 Update were removed and replaced with new
measures and supporting actions. The CAP 2030 builds upon the goals of the CAP 2020 Update and
is based on a more recent inventory for Dublin. The 2015 inventory indicates that the activities
within Dublin emitted 317,891 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO2e) or 5.5 MT
CO2e per capita. Consistent with these 2030 and 2045 goals, Dublin will need to achieve per capita
emissions of 2.8 MT CO2e by 2030 and zero net emissions by 2045. To help achieve these goals, the
CAP 2030 includes interim targets of 3.7 MT CO2e by 2025 and 0.8 MT CO2e by 2040 in its emission
forecast scenarios. Table 1 summarizes the GHG emission targets and gaps. Additional revisions to
the CAP and additional measures will be required in order for the City to meet the 2045 target.
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
10
Table 1 Summary of CAP 2030 GHG Emissions Targets and Gaps
2015 2020 2025 2030 2045
Adjusted Forecast Emissions
(MT CO2e)
317,840 276,765 272,374 262,770 254,733
GHG Emissions Target (MT CO2e) 317,840 275,408 250,831 197,680 0
Population 57,514 64,624 68,083 71,541 75,000
Per Capita Adjusted Forecast
(MT CO2e per capita)
5.5 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4
Per Capita GHG Emission Targets 1
(MT CO2e per capita)
5.5 4.3 3.7 2.8 0
Remaining Gap to Meet Target – 961 21,542 65,090 254,733
In addition to those strategies incorporated in the CAP 2020 and CAP 2020 Update (transportation
and land use, energy, and waste management), the CAP 2030 adds carbon sequestration to the land
use component (Measure ML-6 and the associated actions). The goal of these strategies is to assist
Dublin in reducing its proportionate fair share of the statewide targets set by AB 32 and SB 32 and
work toward the State’s longer-term target identified in EO B-55-18. Through implementation of the
CAP 2030 measures summarized in Table 2 and other supporting measures in the CAP 2030, Dublin
can realize both the 2025 and 2030 emissions goals as described above. In addition, with
certification of this CAP 2030 IS-ND and adoption of the CAP 2030, future project developments and
plans proposed within the City of Dublin would be able to streamline the respective CEQA GHG
emissions analyses.
1 These provisional targets are consistent with both SB 32 and on a trajectory set forth to achieve EO B-55-18 targets set by the State.
Initial Study
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 11
Table 2 CAP 2030 Reduction Measure Quantification (MT CO2e)
Measure
2025 GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
Strategy 1 – Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy (CF)
CF-1: Opt-Up to 100% Renewable and Carbon-Free Electricity 25,525 20,195
CF-2. Develop a Renewable Resource Buildout Plan Supportive Supportive
Strategy 2 – Building Efficiency and Electrification (EE)
EE-1: Achieve All-Electric New Building Construction 2,633 4,828
EE-2. Implement the State Building Energy Disclosure Program Supportive Supportive
EE-3. Streamline Battery Storage Permit Requirements Supportive Supportive
EE-4: Develop an Existing Building Electrification Plan 5,113 14,061
Strategy 3 – Sustainable Mobility and Land Use (SM)
SM-1: Adopt an Electric Vehicle Charging Station Ordinance 8,537 26,288
SM-2. Develop an EV Infrastructure Plan Supportive Supportive
SM-3: Develop a Transportation Demand Management Plan 2,487 3,928
SM-4. Develop a Citywide Parking Management Plan Supportive Supportive
SM-5: Update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 336 537
SM-6. Continue to Prioritize Transit-Oriented Development Supportive Supportive
SM-7. Develop a Built Environment That Prioritizes Active Mobility Supportive Supportive
Strategy 4 – Materials and Waste Management (MM)
MM-1: Achieve the Organic Waste Diversion Requirements of SB 1383 3,427 3,615
MM-2. Reduce Embodied Emissions Associated with Building Materials Supportive Supportive
Reductions Needed (Emissions Gap) 21,542 65,090
Total Measures Reduction Potential 48,058 73,452
The CAP 2030 measure that would achieve the most significant GHG emissions reductions in 2025 is
Measure CF-1. This measure recommends the City draft a resolution to opt up to East Bay
Community Energy’s (EBCE) 100 percent energy option, which is expected to reduce emissions by
25,525 MT of CO2e in 2025. The next most effective CAP 2030 measure in 2025 would be Measure
SM-1. This measure recommends that the City adopt an Electric Vehicle (EV) Charger Reach Code for
Multifamily and Commercial Buildings to increase access to charging stations and promote the use
of electric vehicles, which would achieve a reduction of 26,288 MT of CO2e by 2030. The third most
effective CAP 2030 measure would be Measure EE-4. This measure aims to develop a program for
residents to facilitate building of all-electric buildings and convert 22 percent of energy use in
existing building stock, which would achieve reductions of 14,061 MT of CO2e by 2030. The
measures and actions in CAP 2030 are also foundational to the ultimate goal of achieving carbon
neutrality but would not, by themselves, achieve the 2045 target. By providing 100% carbon free
and renewable electricity and beginning the transition of the building and transportation sector
towards carbon neutrality, the City of Dublin will create the basis for long-term carbon neutrality.
However, future CAP updates leveraging new technologies and additional state resources are
necessary to achieve this long-term goal.
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
12
Implementation of the CAP 2030 measures identified above could result in physical changes to the
environment that could potentially have an impact on the environment, with respect to the CEQA
issue areas assessed herein. While individual projects resulting from these measures have not been
identified, for the purposes of this document, potential environmental impacts that could occur as a
result of CAP 2030 implementation are assessed. For instance, the use of electric vehicles identified
per Measures ML-3 and SM-1 would support the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and
supporting infrastructure. Additionally, implementation of Measure SM-5 may require the
installation of new bicycle or pedestrian facilities. These types of activities would introduce some
level of physical changes such as the temporary presence of construction vehicles and equipment
during installation of required facilities, and the long-term presence of facilities such as bike and
pedestrian facilities, solar arrays, battery storage facilities, and electric vehicle charging stations
which could alter pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns. Future projects requiring discretionary
approval would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual project impact
analyses will identify project-specific mitigation measures where applicable.
10. Required Approvals
The project requires the adoption of the CAP 2030 and certification of the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration. Although individual projects to reduce GHG emissions may be implemented under the
CAP 2030, each project may be subject to separate environmental review under CEQA.
11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
As mentioned in the Project Location, the City of Dublin is bounded by the City of San Ramon to the
north, Castro Valley to the west, the City of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Livermore to
the east (City of Dublin n.d.). Additionally, the City of Dublin is located 35 miles east of San
Francisco, 23 miles east of Oakland and 31 miles north of San Jose.
12. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The City of Dublin has sole approval authority over the CAP 2030. There are no other public agencies
whose approval is required.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 13
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked, involving at least one
impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
City of Dublin
Climate Action Plan
14
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
7/16/2020
Environmental TechnicianRebecca Parnes
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 15
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a State scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ □ ■
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The City of Dublin is located in the East San Francisco Bay Area and Tri-Valley regions of Alameda
County and is accessible via I-680 from north and south and I-580 from east and west. The City has
not identified any scenic vista in its General Plan nor other specific plans.
In 1994, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which establishes a set of scenic corridor
policies for designated corridors including I-580, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road, and defines a
review process within these scenic corridors (City of Dublin 2016). The applicable policies include:
Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as
creeks and major stands of vegetation
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
16
High quality design and visual character for all development visible from designated scenic
corridors
Reduce visual impacts of extensive grading by sensitive engineering design
Minimize the alteration of existing natural contours
The CAP 2030 is a policy-level document intended to ensure that the City’s compliance with
applicable regulations related to GHG emissions and achieve the City’s GHG-reduction targets while
laying the groundwork for alignment with the State’s long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. In
order to meet these GHG reduction goals, the CAP identifies local GHG reduction measures and
actions. The measures and actions encompass a suite of GHG-reduction opportunities but focus
primarily on the transportation and built environment sectors as they are projected to comprise
over 80 percent of GHG emissions in 2030.
The CAP 2030 includes climate reduction actions (Measures ML-1 and EE-4) to pursue renewable
energy systems at City buildings and facilities and encourage electrification of existing buildings in
Dublin. Additionally, Measure ML-1 also proposes to install solar arrays and battery storage facilities
in Dublin. Installation of these small-scaled facilities would not result in visual impacts. In 2011, the
California Legislature signed Senate Bill 226 (SB 266) and created a statutory exemption (CEQA
exemption 21080.35) for solar projects installed on rooftops or existing parking lots that meet
specified conditions. In addition, Assembly Bill 2188 (AB 2188) took effect on January 1, 2015 and
required local governments to adopt a streamlined and expedited permit approval process for small
residential solar energy panels. Dublin adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code: 7.96,
Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems) to comply with AB 2188
regulations. Large-scale substantial renewable energy facilities, such as a wind or solar farm or large
solar panel installations that could have visual impacts are not included in the CAP 2030 measures,
and thus no aesthetics impact would occur related to those types of facilities.
The CAP 2030 also includes a climate reduction measure (Measure ML-6) that strives to increase
municipal carbon sequestration activities and encourages tree planting in Dublin. Planting new
street trees and private trees may change the visual character of Dublin. However, implementation
of the measure would comply with Dublin Street Tree Ordinance, Heritage Tree Ordinance, and
other regulations and guidelines to minimize the scenic impact.
The CAP 2030 includes a measure (Measure ML-5) to pursue energy efficiency and conservation at
City buildings. Making buildings more energy efficient does not generally involve any design features
that would adversely affect scenic vistas or negatively affect the visual character or quality. Further,
any future site-specific discretionary projects would be subject to subsequent environmental review
wherein any site-specific aesthetic impacts would be addressed accordingly.
The CAP 2030 does not involve any land use or zoning changes. The CAP 2030 would not increase
development that could already occur under the General Plan. As a policy document, the CAP 2030
would not affect scenic vistas or the visual character or quality of Dublin. Implementation of the
climate reduction measures and actions would generally encourage energy efficiency and
conservation, as well as the use of solar energy; encourage walking and bicycling and use of existing
public transit; and increase solid waste diversion. The project would result in no impact to scenic
vistas or the degradation of visual character or quality.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 17
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings in a State scenic highway?
I-580, I-680, San Ramon Road, and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda
County in 1966. Specifically, I-580 and I-680 are designated as State Scenic Highways, including the
portion that runs through Dublin (Caltrans 2014).
The CAP 2030 is a policy document that would not increase development that could already occur
under the General Plan, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would potentially
damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings in a State scenic
highway. Furthermore, implementing the proposed climate reduction measures and actions would
facilitate the preservation of scenic resources and improve City landscape management. Because
implementation of the CAP 2030 would not potentially damage scenic resources, no impact would
occur.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Neither direct construction nor other physical changes are proposed as part of the CAP 2030;
therefore, degradation of the visual character or quality within Dublin would not occur, and
substantial sources of light or glare would not be created. Some of the measures proposed in the
CAP 2030 may encourage and facilitate the construction of features that could result in new sources
of light or glare or have the potential to affect the visual character or quality of the area, such as EV
charging stations or bike paths. But the CAP 2030 would not increase development that could
already occur under the General Plan, nor directly result in development of infrastructure. No
impact associated with light or glare would occur.
In addition, future development and improvements that could occur as a result of implementation
of the CAP 2030 may be subject to additional project-specific environmental review, if required, that
would assess project-specific impacts related to aesthetics. Any future development occurring
within Dublin would continue to be subject to applicable General Plan policies and other regulations
related to aesthetic resources.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
18
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forest Resources
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 19
2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
20
Urban agricultural operations occur within Dublin in the form of private and community gardens. No
large-scale, commercial agricultural cultivation occurs within Dublin. However, there is a portion of
Dublin that is zoned “Agriculture,” which is located to the northeast of the intersection of I-680 and
I-580 (City of Dublin 2018). Although this portion of land is zoned for agricultural use, it is currently
occupied by Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the Santa Rita Jail. Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area is an academic institution, military intelligence facility, and battlefield simulation
center that supports military readiness (United States Army 2019). There are no agricultural
operations currently on this land. Likewise, Dublin does not contain any forest or timberland
resources. Furthermore, the CAP 2030 is a policy document that would not increase development
that could already occur under the General Plan, nor does it involve any development or other
physical changes to the environment. As such, implementation of the CAP 2030 would not have the
potential to substantially degrade agricultural resources or convert agricultural or forest land to
non-agricultural or non-forest uses, nor would it conflict with existing zoning. Impacts to agricultural
and forestry resources would not occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 21
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■
Dublin is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB/Basin), which is under jurisdiction of the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As the local air quality management agency,
the BAAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and Federal air quality
standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.
Depending on whether standards are met or exceeded, the Basin is classified as being in
“attainment” or “non-attainment.” The Basin is a non-attainment area for the federal standards for
ozone (8-hour) and PM10, and the State standards for ozone (8-hour and 1-hour), PM10, and PM2.5.
The Basin is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and State standards
(CARB 2019). Thus, the BAAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to
recognized acceptable standards. The sources, health effects, and typical controls associated with
criteria pollutants are described in Table 3.
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
22
Table 3 Sources, Health Effects, and Typical Controls Associated with Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Sources Health Effects Typical Controls
Ozone (O3) Formed when reactive organic
gases (ROG) and nitrogen
oxides react in the presence of
sunlight. ROG sources include
any source that burns fuels
(e.g., gasoline, natural gas,
wood, oil); solvents;
petroleum processing and
storage.
Breathing difficulties, lung
tissue damage, vegetation
damage, damage to rubber
and some plastics.
Reduce motor vehicle reactive
organic gas (ROG) and
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions
through emission standards,
reformulated fuels,
inspections programs, and
reduced vehicle use. Limit ROG
emissions from commercial
operations, gasoline refueling
facilities, and consumer
products. Limit ROG and NOX
emissions from industrial
sources such as power plants
and manufacturing facilities.
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Any source that burns fuel
such as automobiles, trucks,
heavy construction and
farming equipment, residential
heating.
Chest pain in heart patients,
headaches, reduced mental
alertness.
Control motor vehicle and
industrial emissions. Use
oxygenated gasoline during
winter months. Conserve
energy
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
See Carbon Monoxide. Lung irritation and damage.
Reacts in the atmosphere to
form ozone and acid rain.
Control motor vehicle and
industrial combustion
emissions. Conserve energy.
Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Coal or oil burning power
plants and industries,
refineries, diesel engines.
Increases lung disease and
breathing problems for
asthmatics. Reacts in the
atmosphere to form acid rain.
Reduce use of high sulfur fuels
(e.g., use low sulfur
reformulated diesel or natural
gas). Conserve energy.
Respirable
particulate matter
(PM10)
Road dust, windblown dust,
agriculture and construction,
fireplaces. Also formed from
other pollutants (NOX, SOX,
organics).
Increased respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer,
premature death, reduced
visibility, surface soiling.
Control dust sources,
industrial particulate
emissions, woodburning
stoves and fireplaces. Reduce
secondary pollutants which
react to form PM10. Conserve
energy.
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Fuel combustion in motor
vehicles, equipment, and
industrial sources; residential
and agricultural burning. Also
formed from reaction of other
pollutants (NOX, SOX, organics,
and NH3).
Increases respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer, and
premature death, reduced
visibility, surface soiling.
Particles can aggravate heart
diseases such as congestive
heart failure and coronary
artery disease.
Reduce combustion emissions
from motor vehicles,
equipment, industries, and
agricultural and residential
burning. Precursor controls,
like those for ozone, reduce
fine particle formation in the
atmosphere.
Lead Metal smelters, resource
recovery, leaded gasoline,
deterioration of lead paint.
Learning disabilities, brain and
kidney damage. Control metal
smelters.
No lead in gasoline or paint.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coal or oil burning power
plants and industries,
refineries, diesel engines.
Increases lung disease and
breathing problems for
asthmatics. Reacts in the
atmosphere to form acid rain.
Reduce use of high sulfur fuels
(e.g., use low sulfur
reformulated diesel or natural
gas). Conserve energy.
Sulfates Produced by reaction in the air
of SO2, (see SO2 sources), a
component of acid rain.
Breathing difficulties,
aggravates asthma, reduced
visibility.
See SO2
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 23
Pollutant Sources Health Effects Typical Controls
Hydrogen Sulfide Geothermal power plants,
petroleum production and
refining, sewer gas.
Nuisance odor (rotten egg
smell), headache and
breathing difficulties (higher
concentrations).
Control emissions from
geothermal power plants,
petroleum production and
refining, sewers, and sewage
treatment plants.
Visibility Reducing
Particulates
See PM2.5 Reduced visibility (e.g.
obscures mountains and other
scenery), reduced airport
safety.
See PM2.5
Vinyl Chloride Exhaust gases from factories
that manufacture or process
vinyl chloride (construction,
packaging, and transportation
industries).
Central nervous system effects
(e.g. dizziness, drowsiness,
headaches), kidney irritation,
liver damage, liver cancer.
Control emissions from plants
that manufacture or process
vinyl chloride, installation of
monitoring systems.
Toxic Air
Contaminant
(TAC)
Combustion engines
(stationary and mobile), diesel
combustion, storage and use
of TAC-containing substances
(i.e. gasoline, lead smelting,
etc.)
Depends on TAC, but may
include cancer, mutagenic
and/or teratogenic effects,
other acute or chronic health
effects.
Toxic Best Available Control
Technologies (T-BACT), limit
emissions from known
sources.
Source: County of San Diego 2007
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) mandate that states submit and implement a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting air quality standards. The SIP includes pollution
control measures to demonstrate how the standards will be met through those measures. The SIP is
established by incorporating measures established during the preparation of Air Quality
Management Plans (AQMP) and adopted rules and regulations by each local APCD and AQMD,
which are submitted for approval to CARB and the U.S. EPA (CARB 2016). The goal of an AQMP is to
reduce pollutant concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
through the implementation of air pollutant emissions controls.
The Final 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (Spare the Air, Cool the Environment: A Blueprint for Clean
Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area [2017 Clean Air Plan]) was developed pursuant to the
CAAA requirements. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the most recent Bay Area ozone plan, the
2010 Clean Air Plan, pursuant to air quality planning requirements defined in the California Health &
Safety Code (BAAQMD 2017). The 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies feasible emission control measures
to provide progress in the region toward decreasing emissions of the air pollutants that are most
harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air contaminants;
reducing emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the
near-term; and decreasing emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.
The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed in collaboration and consultation with the Air District’s
regional agency partners, including the MTC, ABAG, and the Bay Area Conservation of Development
Commission (BCDC). As outlined in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, MTC and ABAG staff provided important
input to the transportation sector measures, and MTC staff played a key role in developing emission
reduction and cost estimates for the transportation measures. In addition, the 2017 Plan was
informed by regional agency plans, including Plan Bay Area.
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
24
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document that does not facilitate new development or other physical
changes to the environment. Rather, the CAP 2030 would support development that could already
occur under the General Plan. Thus, it is consistent with the AQMP. Furthermore, the purpose and
intended effect of the CAP 2030 is to reduce GHG emissions generated in Dublin to help reduce the
effects of climate change.
The proposed project would support some measures which may require construction activities (e.g.,
solar array, EV charging stations, stormwater infrastructure, etc.). The impacts to air quality are
generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy
construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to ROG that would be released during the
drying phase upon application of architectural coatings. However, implementation of proposed
measures and actions would not include large scale construction within Dublin; therefore, it would
have low emissions and would not result in significant impacts to air quality. In addition, each future
construction and development project would be subject to review by the City for compliance with
the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to comply with BAAQMD air quality
regulations and other applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Therefore, the impact from
construction activities would be less than significant.
With respect to operational emissions, many programs to reduce GHG emissions would have the
secondary benefit of reducing criteria pollutant emissions. For example, measures and supporting
actions aim to increase building energy efficiency and electrification (Measures EE-1, EE-2, EE-3, EE-
4, and MM-2); promote renewable energy (Measures CF-1, CF-2, and ML-1); promote electric
vehicles and reduce on-road gasoline fuel use (Measure SM-1, SM-2, SM-3, SM-4, and ML-3); and
reduce vehicle miles traveled (Measure SM-3, SM-4, SM-5, SM-6, SM-7, and ML-2). Implementation
of these CAP actions and the supporting measures would be beneficial by helping Dublin meet
applicable air quality plan goals and generally reduce sensitive receptor exposure to pollutant
concentrations. In addition, as mentioned above, future discretionary development projects
constructed in Dublin would undergo project-level CEQA review. Impacts related to air quality
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
The CARB Air Quality Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) identifies land
uses associated with odor complaints which include: sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling
facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, auto body shops,
coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations
(CARB 2005). The CAP 2030 is a policy document that does not facilitate new development or other
physical changes.
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 25
Measure MM-1 recommends that the City conduct outreach about the benefits of composting and
Measure ML-6 aims to increase carbon sequestration through finalizing and promoting community
composting standards. Compost is not identified on the list of “Sources of Odor Complaints” (Table
1-4) as provided in the CARB Air Quality Land Use Handbook and would not be anticipated to result
in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people. Therefore, the CAP 2030 would not facilitate any development that would create odors and
no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
26
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 27
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State
or Federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
28
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document and does not include any site-specific development, designs, or
proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for development that would result in biological
resource impacts. Dublin is a primarily urbanized community; nevertheless, the General Plan
incorporates goals and policies to protect biological resources in rural areas of Dublin.
Furthermore, the measures and supporting actions included in the CAP 2030 would generally apply
to the urbanized areas of Dublin, with little application to parks, open spaces area, or other
locations where sensitive biological resources may be present. Implementation of the CAP 2030
would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, special status species, or wildlife
movement. In addition, the CAP 2030 itself would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. Therefore, the impact would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
City of Dublin has passed the Street Tree Ordinance and Heritage Tree Ordinance to preserve local
tree resources. The Street Tree Ordinance was established to preserve the trees and plantings on
City property and enhance the ecological benefit to the community by providing for the regulation
of planting, management, maintenance, preservation, and where necessary, removal of public trees.
Since Dublin has many heritage trees, Heritage Tree Ordinance was developed to enhance the
scenic beauty, increase property values, and protect the general welfare of City trees.
The CAP 2030 does not include any development, nor would it add or enable any new development
that would conflict with local goals, policies, or ordinances protecting biological resources. Rather,
the CAP 2030 would facilitate development that could already occur under the General Plan. In
addition, the CAP 2030 contains measures and supporting actions that are consistent with the
General Plan. For example, the Measure ML-6 aims to enhance municipal carbon sequestration
opportunities and encourages tree planting in Dublin. The CAP 2030 would not affect the City’s
ability to attain goals and policies that protect biological resources. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 29
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan?
The CAP 2030 would not facilitate any specific development projects, nor would it add or enable any
new development that would conflict with the adopted General Plan or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
30
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 31
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Dublin Government Code sec. 65302(a) requires land use elements to designate open space for
protection of Native American historical, cultural and sacred sites. According to the City General
Plan, there are seven sites in Dublin listed in the California Archaeological Inventory, Northwest
Information Center, at Sonoma State University including the church and school on the grounds of
the Dublin Heritage Park and Museums. As many as a dozen potentially significant historic and
prehistoric sites have been identified in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The listed California
Historical Resources in Dublin includes Green Store, Francisco Soland Alviso Adobe and Original
Murray Schoolhouse (California Office of Historic Preservation 2019). However, the CAP 2030 is a
policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General Plan. Because direct
development would not result from implementation of the CAP 2030, adverse changes or
disturbances to unique archaeological, paleontological, or geologic resources or historical resources
would not occur. Similarly, because the CAP 2030 would not increase development that could
already occur under the General Plan, nor involve ground-disturbing activities, the CAP 2030 would
not directly result in disturbance of human remains. Therefore, no impact to cultural resources
would occur.
Implementation of some of the GHG emission reduction measures may require future development
or improvements, such as bike paths, solar panels, or building improvements for efficiency;
however, each future improvement would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the
General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be required to comply with all applicable local, State,
and Federal regulations. In addition, future development and improvements that could occur as a
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
32
result of implementation of the CAP 2030 may be subject to additional project-specific
environmental review, if required, that would assess project-specific impacts related to cultural
resources.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 33
6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
Setting
California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in the
nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate (United States Energy Information
Administration [EIA] 2018 a). California consumed 292,039 gigawatt-hours of electricity and
2,110,829 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2017 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2019, EIA
2018b). The single largest end-use sector for energy consumption in California is transportation
(39.8 percent), followed by industry (23.7 percent), commercial (18.9 percent), and residential (17.7
percent) (EIA 2018a).
Adopted on September 10, 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 100 accelerates the State’s Renewable Portfolio
Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase
procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60
percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
The City has demonstrated its commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy through the
many efforts. The City joined East Bay Community Energy (EBEC) on November 15, 2016. EBCE is a
local electricity supplier in Alameda County and provides cleaner, greener energy at competitive
rates. The City opted to sign up for Renewable 100 for all of its municipal accounts, which is energy
generated from 100% renewable sources. The City also adopted 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code in 2020, which requires efficiency measures to reduce energy use, and provide
energy reduction benefits. When doing so, the City increased the requirements for EV charging
station installation to Tier 2 levels for all sectors.
The CAP 2020 Update noted that, between 2005 and 2010, residential electricity use increased by
11 percent, residential natural gas use increased by 16 percent, commercial and industrial electricity
use decreased by two percent, and commercial and industrial natural gas use increased by 13
percent. However, these increases roughly correlate with the 21 percent increase in population that
Dublin experienced in the same five-year period (City of Dublin 2013). In 2015, 296,710 metric tons
of MTCO2e were generated by activities in the City of Dublin, which is a 10 percent decrease from
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
34
the 2010 baseline inventory. Specifically, energy use decreased by 10 percent from the 2010
baseline inventory, which accounts for almost 40 percent of Dublin’s total emissions in 2015.
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing climate action measures and implementation actions
to reduce GHG emissions. The CAP 2030 does not propose specific development or other physical
changes to the environment and would not facilitate growth beyond what the General Plan would
allow. Furthermore, the purpose and intended effect of the CAP 2030 is to reduce GHG emissions
generated in Dublin to help reduce the effects of climate change, including those emissions
generated by energy demand and supply. For example, the CAP 2030 encourages energy efficiency
electrification of existing building stock. Measure EE-1 aims to encourage all new residential and/or
commercial construction to be 100 percent electric or achieve higher energy efficiency if both gas
and electricity are being used. Measure CF-1 suggests the City to consider opt up with EBCE to 100
percent renewable (Renewable 100) energy.
Furthermore, Dublin has adopted the California Green Building Standards Code per Dublin
Municipal Code Section 7.94. Therefore, any construction associated with projects included in the
CAP 2030 would be required to be designed to comply with the performance levels of the California
Green Building Standard Code in place at the time the project is constructed. Likewise, all projects
would be required to comply with the energy standards in the current California Energy Code, Part 6
of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). Therefore, the CAP 2030 would not conflict with
the adopted energy conservation plans or result in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful
or inefficient manner and impacts would be less than significant. Rather the proposed CAP 2030
would likely assist in reducing energy use and would be consistent with State and local plans for
renewable energy and energy efficiency.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 35
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potentially
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? □ □ □ ■
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ ■
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■
4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? □ □ □ ■
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ □ □ ■
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ □ □ ■
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
36
a.i Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.ii Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
a.iii Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
a.iv Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving landslides?
b Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Dublin is located in a seismically active region and is identified as Landslide Zone by California
Department of Conservation (California Department of Conservation 2015). In 2010, the City
adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan as an annex to the Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plan to assess hazards and mitigate risks prior to a disaster event and fully cover the necessity to
address seismic and geological hazards (City of Dublin 2011). All development projects are required
to conform to the current California Building Code.
As mentioned above, the CAP 2030 is a policy document containing climate measures and
supporting actions to reduce GHG emissions, which is consistent with Dublin’s General Plan and
other regional regulations. The CAP 2030 does not propose site-specific development that would
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. Additionally, because the CAP 2030
would not increase development that could already occur under the General Plan, nor involve
ground-disturbing activities, it would not result in substantial soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or the
presence of unstable soils. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
The proposed project and recommended measures in the CAP 2030 would not require the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 37
g. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document that does not include site-specific development, designs, or
proposals, nor does it grant entitlements for development that would result in impacts to geological
features. The CAP 2030 would generally apply to the urbanized areas of Dublin, with little
application to parks, open spaces area, or other locations where uncovered paleontological
resources may be present. Furthermore, the project would not involve any significant grading or
excavation activities that would have the potential to disturb paleontological resources. Therefore,
no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
38
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 39
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted to reduce the emissions
of greenhouse gases? □ □ ■ □
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and
oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and
storms) over an extended period. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of
GHG, which contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence that helps regulate the
temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits the earth’s surface and
warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared
radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping
into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to support life on Earth because
it warms the planet by approximately 60°F. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of
the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect
by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to an average increase in
Earth’s temperature.
GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs are the
burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for
transportation); methane generated by landfill wastes and raising livestock; deforestation activities;
and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs,
PFC, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the
atmosphere have increased by over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent respectively, primarily
due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical
composition. Changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in
which the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts in California due to climate
change may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high
ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Energy Commission [CEC]
2009).
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing climate reduction measures and supporting actions to
reduce GHG emissions. The proposed CAP 2030 creates a GHG emission reduction strategy
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
40
(consistent with Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines)2 for the City of Dublin. The inventory
performed for 2015 demonstrated that the activities within Dublin emitted 317,840 metric tons
(MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO2e) or 5.5 MT CO2e per capita. The State has codified a
goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32); 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels
by 2030 (SB 32); and has set a non-codified, long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (Executive
Order [EO] B-55-18).
The CAP 2030 contains a series of climate reduction measures to reduce emissions compared to
1990 levels. In 1990, Dublin is estimated to have emitted 11.9 MT CO2e per capita. Dublin’s 2030
GHG emissions forecast, with implementation of reduction measures contained in the CAP 2030, is
forecast to be 2.7 MT CO2e per capita, a reduction of over 76 percent from baseline levels. As such,
the CAP 2030 would result in the reduction of GHG emissions rather than generating GHG emissions
and impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The CAP 2030 is a policy-level document that sets strategies to reduce GHG emissions within Dublin
in an effort with State regulations. As mentioned above under Impact “a” of the Greenhouse Gas
Section, the CAP 2030 includes climate reduction measures and supporting actions to reduce Dublin’s
GHG emissions from forecast levels by approximately 45,378 MT of CO2e in 2025 and 72,472 MT of
CO2e in 2030.
As described in Section 9, Description of Project, the purpose of the CAP 2030 is to reduce Dublin’s
proportionate fair share of the statewide target set by AB 32 and SB 32 and work toward the State’s
longer term target identified in Executive Order S-3-05 3 and Executive Order B-30-15.The CAP 2030
would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction plan, including the AB 32 Scoping Plan or the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). The Association of
Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission adopted the MTP/SCS in
2017, which reflects the regions commitment to improve mobility, sustainability, and economy.
Additionally, the Plan demonstrates how the region will reduce emissions from transportation
sources to comply with SB 375. The CAP 2030 identifies how Dublin would achieve consistency with
the statewide emissions limit, 2017 Scoping Plan and Plan Bay Area. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
2 Per the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1), a qualified GHG reduction plan should: quantify greenhouse gas emissions,
both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; establish a level,
based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not
be cumulatively considerable; identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area; specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial
evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; establish a
mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified
levels; and be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
3 Note, Executive Order S-03-05 is intended to guide State agencies’ efforts to control and regulate GHG emissions but has no direct
binding effect on local government or private actions.
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 41
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ □ ■
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? □ □ □ ■
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list
of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires? □ □ □ ■
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
42
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG
emissions. The proposed CAP 2030 does not involve any site-specific development, nor would it
facilitate new development. Implementation of the CAP 2030 measures would not involve the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not create reasonably
foreseeable upset and/or accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
Implementation of some of the GHG reduction measures such as the use of bicycle facilities, energy
retrofits, EV charging stations may involve the use and transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and
solvents, among other activities. These types of materials are not considered acutely hazardous, and
all storage, handling, and disposal of these materials are regulated by the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational
Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), and Alameda County Environmental Health Division.
Additionally, each future improvement would be subject to review by the City for compliance with
the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to comply with all applicable local,
State, and Federal regulations, including project-specific environmental review. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG
emissions. The proposed CAP 2030 does not include any site-specific proposals and development,
nor would it emit or handle hazardous materials. Implementing some GHG measures may require
future development or improvements, such as bike paths, solar panels, or building improvements
for efficiency. However, each future improvement would be subject to review by the City for
compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to comply with all
applicable local, State, and federal regulations including project-specific environmental review.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG
emissions. The proposed CAP 2030 does not include any site-specific development, nor would it
facilitate new development that would directly or indirectly create a significant hazard to the public.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 43
e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The project is not located in any airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public or private
airport. The nearest airports include: Hayward Executive Airport (17 miles), Livermore Municipal
Airport (eight miles), and Oakland International Airport (20 miles). Therefore, due to the distance to
local airports, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG
emissions. The proposed CAP 2030 does not include any site-specific development, nor would it
facilitate new development that would interfere with adopted emergency plans. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE), City of Dublin is not
located in any designated California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CalFIRE 2019), or in any State
Responsibility Areas (CalFIRE 2016). No impact associated with wildland fires would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
44
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 45
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would: □ □ □ ■
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site; □ □ □ ■
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site; □ □ □ ■
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ □ ■
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ ■
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? □ □ □ ■
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
46
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan. The CAP 2030 does not include measures or actions that would degrade surface or
groundwater quality. Additionally, some of the measures would support and improve the local
water quality. For example, Measure ML-7 aims to achieve the City’s resilience goals through
implementation of the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. Therefore, implementation of the CAP
2030 emission reduction measures would not violate water quality standards, waste discharge
requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality; no impact would
occur.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan. Implementation of the CAP 2030 measures would not violate water quality standards, waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. As a
result, no negative impacts related to groundwater or surface water quality, groundwater resources,
runoff, or sensitive areas would occur.
Furthermore, Measure ML-6 aims to enhance municipal carbon sequestration opportunities and
encourages tree planting in Dublin, which would reduce stormwater runoff and increase
groundwater recharge. Likewise, Measure ML-7 aims to achieve the City’s resilience goals through
implementation of the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. Therefore, implementing the CAP
2030 would have a beneficial effect on local water quality and support water management in
Dublin; no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 47
d. Would the project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due
to project inundation?
Portions of Dublin are within the 100- and 500-year flood zones defined by Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) (City of Dublin 2017). In Dublin, any new construction in flood prone
areas must comply with Chapter 7.24 (Flood Control) of Title 7 of the Dublin Municipal Code. While
the City has not identified any major flood improvement projects, Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, otherwise known as Zone 7, has adopted comprehensive flood
control measures and regulations including Flood Protection Maintenance Projects and Stream
Management Master Plan, which would further decrease the flood risk of Dublin (Zone 7 Water
Agency 2019).
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan and does not propose any land use or zoning changes, nor does it include any site-specific
development. Implementing the CAP 2030 would not result in flood hazard or tsunami directly.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
The proposed measures would not include direct extraction of groundwater, and would ultimately
encourage water savings through conservation. The proposed project would not interfere with or
obstruct implementation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
48
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 49
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan and does not include any climate action measures or any specific development projects that
would divide an established community. Further, the CAP 2030 includes measures (SM-5, SM-7, and
ML-2) that would support pedestrian and bicycle circulation and improved transportation
alternatives, which would improve connectivity throughout Dublin. Measure SM-5 aims to update
the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan and prioritize implementation, which would increase the
walkability of Dublin and decrease the vehicle miles traveled. Measure SM-7 aims to implement
form-based codes that improve the pedestrian experience and create a built environment that
prioritizes active mobility. Measure ML-2 aims to incentivize municipal employee alternative
transportation. Implementing the CAP 2030 would improve the community connectivity; therefore,
no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan. Nonetheless, implementing the CAP 2030 would require some modification of existing policies,
including developing and implementing new programs, and projects, or modifying existing ones. For
example, Measure ML-1 would aim to expand the City’s battery capacity storage and may include
the installation of solar panels at municipal buildings. Additionally, Measure EE-1 aims to achieve all-
electric new building construction while Measure EE-3 aims to streamline energy storage permit
requirements. In order to implement these measures, the City Municipal Code and other applicable
documents may need to be amended to reflect new or modified requirements.
The CAP 2030 is designed to mitigate adverse environmental impacts associated with climate
change. Where modifications of existing policies are needed, such as updates to policies related to
parking management, the CAP 2030 measures and actions would result in greater avoidance or
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
50
mitigation of environmental effects. The CAP 2030 would not conflict with current land use plan or
policy; therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 51
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the State? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the State?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan. The General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in Dublin (City of Dublin 2017).
Additionally, the CAP 2030 would not facilitate any specific development projects and would not
add or enable development that could result in the loss of mineral resources. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
52
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 53
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with the General Plan.
Some of the proposed measures of CAP 2030 would support small scale construction projects such
as EV charging station construction, which may result in a temporary increase in groundborne
vibration or noise levels. However, each future improvement would be subject to review by the City
for compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be required to comply with
applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, including project-specific environmental review.
The City’s General Plan indicates that roadway vehicle traffic is the major source of noise in Dublin
(City of Dublin 2017). The CAP 2030 encompasses a suite of GHG-reduction opportunities but
focuses primarily on the transportation sector. For example, Measure SM-5 aims to review,
prioritize, and update the City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which would decrease the vehicle
miles traveled, and Measure SM-3 would establish a plan to reduce single occupancy vehicles,
including creating guidelines and policies that provide a larger range of micro-mobility transit
options. These active transportation measures would reduce vehicle miles traveled and further
reduce traffic-related noise in Dublin.
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
54
Therefore, implementation of the CAP 2030 would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or
noise levels; the impact would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no airports or airstrips within Dublin, as mentioned in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials. The CAP 2030 does not propose land use or zoning changes related to airports, airstrips,
or heliports, nor does it include development that would increase exposure to excessive noise levels
associated with airports, airstrips, or heliports. No impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 55
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan and would not result in increases in population or induce additional population growth and
would not displace people or housing. Therefore, no impacts related to population and housing
would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
56
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 57
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1. Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
2. Police protection? □ □ □ ■
3. Schools? □ □ □ ■
4. Parks? □ □ □ ■
5. Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a.i. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for fire protection?
a.ii. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for police protection?
a.iii. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for schools?
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
58
a.iv. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for parks?
a.v. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for other public facilities?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan. New development facilitated by the General Plan would increase public service needs in
Dublin by adding population and housing. However, implementation of the CAP 2030 and the
proposed supporting measures would not result in increases in population and induce additional
population growth. As such, the CAP 2030 would not require the construction of new or physically
altered governmental facilities (i.e., fire or police stations, schools, parks, libraries) to serve
additional population, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
Therefore, no impact on public services causing the need for new governmental facilities would
occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 59
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The City has updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2015 to manage the local parks and
recreational facilities that were available for the current and future population of Dublin (City of
Dublin 2015). The Master Plan is updated based on the population projections and the most current
land use for ultimate build-out in accordance with the City’s General Plan.
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan. Additionally, the CAP 2030 would not result in substantial population growth or direct land use
change. Therefore, implementation of the CAP 2030 would not result in a substantial physical
deterioration of parks or other recreational facilities or result in the need to expand recreational
facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
60
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist
Transportation and Traffic
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 61
17 Transportation and Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
The City adopted Dublin Bikeways Master Plan in 2007. In 2014, the Dublin Bikeways Master Plan
was updated and renamed the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (City of Dublin 2014). The
updated Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan contains goals and policies for development and
implementation of a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides a viable transportation
alternative to the automobile, improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and provides residents
with access and good connections to parks, open space, trails and other recreational opportunities.
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing goals, measures, and actions that are consistent with
Dublin’s General Plan, many of which are aimed at facilitating the implementation of the local
transportation regulations. For example, Measure SM-5 aims to review, prioritize, and update the
City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which would decrease the vehicle miles traveled in Dublin
and provide larger range of micro-mobility transit options, where “micro-mobility” refers to travel
solutions for shorter distances. Further, Measure SM-3 would establish a plan to reduce single
occupancy vehicles, including creating guidelines and policies for micro-mobility. These measures
would not conflict with the objectives and policies of the General Plan or Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, but rather would be consistent with those plans. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Implementation of some of the GHG emission reduction measures may require future development
or improvements, such as bike paths, solar panels, or building improvements for efficiency;
however, each future improvement would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
62
General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and
Federal regulations. In addition, future development and improvements that could occur as a result
of implementation of the CAP 2030 may be subject to additional project-specific environmental
review, if required, that would assess project-specific impacts related to vehicle miles traveled.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with Dublin’s General
Plan and would not facilitate development beyond that allowed under the General Plan. As such, it
would not create any traffic hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed
measures and supporting actions included in the CAP 2030 would provide alternative modes of
transportation and reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled throughout Dublin. For example,
the CAP 2030 promotes the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan implementation to enhance bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit connectivity, which would reduce congestion. The CAP does not include
measures that would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 63
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
2024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significant of the resource to a
California Native American tribe? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed
or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1 (k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a
resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
The CAP 2030 is a policy document containing goals, measures, and actions that are consistent with
Dublin’s General Plan and does not involve any development or other physical changes to the
environment. The CAP 2030 does not include any development, nor does it grant any entitlements
for development that could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource. Similarly, because CAP 2030 would not increase development that could already occur
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
64
under the General Plan, nor involve ground-disturbing activities, the CAP 2030 would not directly
result in disturbance of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Implementation of some of the GHG emission reduction measures may require future development
or improvements, such as bike paths, solar panels, or building improvements for efficiency;
however, each future improvement would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the
General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and
Federal regulations. In addition, future development and improvements that could occur as a result
of implementation of the CAP 2030 may be subject to additional project-specific environmental
review, if required, that would assess project-specific impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 65
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ □ ■
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals? □ □ □ ■
e. Comply with Federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is the designated provider of water supplies for
residents in Dublin (City of Dublin 2017). In addition, DSRSD provides recycled (reclaimed) water for
irrigation and other non-potable uses within Dublin. The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). DSRSD also provides
wastewater collection and treatment services for Dublin. DSRSD has a comprehensive water
conservation program that includes both supply- and demand-side measures, including enforcing
wastewater and regulations, water audits, and optimal management practices.
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
66
The CAP 2030 is a policy document to reduce GHG emission and energy consumption throughout
Dublin and would not include any site-specific designs or proposals. Implementing the CAP 2030
would not result in a direct increase in population and housing, nor would it facilitate growth
beyond that anticipated by the General Plan. Additionally, some supporting measures would reduce
energy consumption within Dublin. For example, the CAP 2030 aims to reduce eight percent natural
gas use by 2025. Implementing the CAP 2030 would not create new demand to utilities or other
services, including water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The CAP 2030 is a policy-level document that does not include site-specific designs or proposals, nor
does it grant entitlements for development that would have the potential to increase demand for
water supply or other utility services. Implementing the CAP 2030 would include no new residential
construction, or demolition of existing housing, and would have no effect on water demand and
wastewater treatment demand. Therefore, no impact to water supply and wastewater treatment
would occur.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Amador Valley Industries (AVI) is the designated provider of solid waste collection and recycling
services for all residents, businesses, and governmental agencies in the City of Dublin. Waste is
taken to the Altamont Landfill, which is managed by Waste Management and has an estimated
capacity of 62 million cubic yards and is estimated to reach capacity in January 2029 (City of Dublin
2017). The City has a goal of reducing waste sent to the landfill by 75 percent by 2025 as required by
AB 341. To achieve this reduction goal, the City has implemented a variety of measures, including
expanding existing commercial and residential recycling and composting programs, and expanding
community education and outreach initiatives. As stated in CalRecycle’s proposed SB 1383
regulations, Dublin must engage in edible food recovery capacity planning and reduce short-lived
climate pollutant resulted from landfill.
The CAP 2030 includes waste-reduction measures to achieve zero-waste within Dublin. For example,
Measure MM-1 aims to divert 20 percent of edible food waste from landfill, with compliance of SB
1383. Additionally, because the CAP 2030 is a policy document that would not facilitate growth
beyond that anticipated by the General Plan, it would not generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 67
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
68
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE), City of Dublin is not
located in any designated California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CalFIRE 2019), or in any State
Responsibility Areas (CalFIRE 2016). Additionally, the CAP 2030 is a policy-level document that does
not include any site-specific designs or proposals, nor does it grant any entitlements for
development that would have the potential to cause wildfire directly. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 69
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? □ □ ■ □
b. Have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ □ ■
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The intent of the CAP 2030 is to reduce GHG emissions from Dublin’s operations within Dublin
through implementation of GHG reduction measures and supporting actions. The CAP 2030
measures and actions are consistent with the General Plan and encourage residents, businesses,
and the City to reduce energy, fuel use, and the associated GHG emissions. The CAP 2030 would not
facilitate development that would diminish wildlife habitats or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory. As discussed in Sections 4, Biological Resources,
and 5, Cultural Resources, the impact would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
70
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
Implementation of the CAP 2030 would result in a cumulatively considerable beneficial reduction of
GHG emissions and would not facilitate development that may make a considerable contribution to
significant cumulative impacts. Implementation of the CAP 2030 would be consistent with General
Plan policies aimed at reducing emissions of GHGs and air pollutants, reducing vehicle miles
traveled, reducing demands on utilities, and increasing local water availability. The CAP 2030 would
not make an adverse contribution to cumulative impacts related to growth in accordance with the
General Plan and would result in either no cumulative impact or less-than-significant cumulative
impact with respect to other CEQA topics. Therefore, a less-than-significant cumulative impact
would occur.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The CAP 2030 would not cause a direct or indirect adverse effect on human beings. Rather, as
discussed throughout this Initial Study-Negative Declaration, the CAP 2030 would serve as a
pathway to reduce GHG emissions and other positive environmental effects. These benefits include
reduction in air pollution, reduction in transportation congestion, reduction in energy consumption,
and soil conservation. Therefore, no impact would occur.
NO IMPACT
References
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 71
References
Bibliography
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-
plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. AB 32 Scoping Plan.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
_____. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
_____. 2016. State SIP Strategy. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016sip.htm
_____. 2019. Area Designations Maps/State and National.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2015. CGS Information Seismic Hazards Programs
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). 2016. State Responsibility Area
Viewer. https://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/
_____. 2019. California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ).
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=31219c833eb54598ba83d09fa0adb346
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.3).
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf (accessed March
2019).
_____. 2014. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
California Energy Commission. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and
Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. March 2009.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
California Office of Historic Preservation. 2019. California. Listed California Historical Resources.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=1
Dublin, City of. 2010. Climate Action Plan.
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1049/Dublin-Climate-Action-Plan?bidId
_____. 2011. 2010 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex. http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-
content/documents/2010LHMP/Dublin-Annex-2011.pdf
_____. 2013. Climate Action Plan Update. https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/dublin-climate-action-plan_update_2013.pdf
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
72
_____. 2014. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7738/Bike-and-Ped-Plan-and-Guidelines-
1?bidId=
_____. 2015. Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5063/Park-and-Recreation-Master-Plan---
2015-Update?bidId=
_____. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7776/EDSP-2016-Update-Full-
PDF?bidId=
_____. 2017. General Plan. https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17928/0-General-Plan-
Update-2018-021318-web?bidId=
_____. 2018. Dublin Zoning Map. https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20627/Zoning-Map-
December-2018
_____. n.d. “Demographics.” https://www.dublin.ca.gov/1811/Demographics
_____. n.d. “History of Dublin”. https://dublin.ca.gov/397/History-of-Dublin
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
(FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf (accessed March 2019).
Sperling’s Best Places. 2017. Dublin, California. https://www.bestplaces.net/city/california/dublin
United States Army Parks Reserve. 2019. “Training Area”. https://home.army.mil/parks/index.php
United States Census Bureau. 2018. City of Dublin.
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018a. “California - Profile Overview.” Last
modified: November 15, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed July 2019)
____. 2018b. Natural Gas: Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. December 31, 2018b.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm (accessed July 2019)
Zone 7 Water Agency. 2019. https://www.zone7water.com/flood-stream/36-public/content/51-
stream-management-master-plan
References
Initial Study – Negative Declaration 73
List of Preparers
Rincon prepared this Initial Study-Negative Declaration under contract to the City of Dublin. Persons
involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include the following.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Erik Feldman, Principal
Matt Maddox, Principal
Ryan Gardner, Senior Program Manager
Hannah Mize, Lead Analyst
Aubrey Mescher, Environmental Planner
Yirui Zhang, Environmental Planner
City of Dublin
Dublin Climate Action Plan
74
This page intentionally left blank
Page 1
08/03/2020
Rebecca Parnes
Environmental Technician
City of Dublin
Public Works Department
101 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Rebecca.Parnes@dublin.ca.gov
CEQA Project #: SCH 2020070437
Document Type: Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Project Lead Agency: City of Dublin
Project Title: Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond
Public Resources Code (PRC) § 3208.1 establishes well reabandonment responsibility when a
previously plugged and abandoned well will be impacted by planned property development or
construction activities. Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware
of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with
development near oil, gas, and geothermal wells.
The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) has received and reviewed the
above referenced project dated 7/23/2020. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and
developers in making wise land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or
geothermal wells, the CalGEM provides the following well evaluation.
The project is located in Alameda County, City of Dublin within the boundaries of no known oil or gas
field:
CalGEM's records indicate no known oil or gas wells are located within the proposed project area.
However, be advised there is an idle oil well located in the northwest corner of the city boundary (API
00100007). The well was permitted in 1924. However, there are no records confirming the well was
ever drilled or plugged and abandoned.
Our records indicate there is 1 known oil or gas well located within the project boundary as
identified in the application.
• Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current CalGEM Requirements as Prescribed by Law and
Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0
• Number of wells Not Abandoned to Current CalGEM Requirements as Prescribed by Law and
Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0
• Number of wells Abandoned to Current CalGEM Requirements as Prescribed by Law and
Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82BA1CE4-05F5-4B47-91AE-1DDE91BFF807
Page 2
• Number of wells Abandoned to Current CalGEM Requirements as Prescribed by Law and
Not Projected to Be Built Over or Have Future Access Impeded by this project: 0
The CalGEM categorically advices against building over, or in any way impeding access to, oil, gas,
or geothermal wells. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or
obstacle that prevents or impedes access including, but not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing,
landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, and decking. Maintaining sufficient access is
considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment to reach a well
from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well
servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the
route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding
infrastructure.
There are no guarantees a well abandoned in compliance with current CalGEM requirements as
prescribed by law will not start leaking in the future. It always remains a possibility that any well may
start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged
and abandoned. CalGEM acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current CalGEM
requirements as prescribed by law have a lower probability of leaking in the future; however, there is
no guarantee that such abandonments will not leak.
PRC § 3208.1 give the CalGEM the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well
where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment, or if the well is not
accessible or visible. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made
by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice
set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for
reabandonment as:
1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with CalGEM
requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an
immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the
owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that
would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived
future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all
rights necessary to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment.
2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was
plugged and abandoned in conformance with CalGEM requirements at the time of plugging
and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the
construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to
whether the previously abandoned well is required to be reabandoned, or to follow the
advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake the construction, then the person
or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary
to reabandon the well and be responsible for the reabandonment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82BA1CE4-05F5-4B47-91AE-1DDE91BFF807
Page 3
3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well
was plugged and abandoned in conformance with CalGEM requirements at the time of
plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an
affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of developing
the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the
abandonment shall be responsible for the reabandonment.
No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from
CalGEM. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other
fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other re-abandonment work.
CalGEM also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth
below final grade. CCR §1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10
feet below grade. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added)
to meet this regulation, a permit from the CalGEM is required before work can start.
CalGEM makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency:
1. To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells
located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any
improvements near oil or gas wells, CalGEM recommends that information regarding the
above identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of
this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title
information of the subject real property.
2. CalGEM recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in
accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if
soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development.
As indicated in PRC § 3106, the CalGEM has statutory authority over the drilling, operation,
maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent,
as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil,
gas, and geothermal deposits; and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation
or domestic purposes. In addition to CalGEM's authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC §§
3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under PRC §§ 3236, 3236.5, and
3359 for violations within the CalGEM's jurisdictional authority. CalGEM does not regulate grading,
excavations, or other land use issues.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 324-7120 or via email at:
Charlene.Wardlow@conservation.ca.gov
Sincerely,
Charlene L Wardlow
Northern District Deputy
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82BA1CE4-05F5-4B47-91AE-1DDE91BFF807
DocuSign Envelope ID: 82BA1CE4-05F5-4B47-91AE-1DDE91BFF807
From:Romal Mitr
To:David Haubert; Rebecca Parnes
Subject:Dublin Climate Action Plan - A Proposal for Youth Engagement
Date:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 1:35:37 PM
Dear Mayor Haubert and Ms. Parnes,
I hope that you are both doing well.
My name is Romal Mitr, and I am a high school sophomore at the Quarry Lane School in
Dublin, CA.
I recently read about the Dublin Climate Action Plan 2023 and Beyond, and I was so inspired
by the steps Dublin is taking to reduce its carbon footprint.
Environmentalism has always been an integral part of me. As an active environmentalist and
steward of this planet, I strive to shift the current paradigm through which we view our world
ecosystems. I am constantly on the lookout for opportunities for me to showcase my love for
environmentalism and share this spirit with my community.
In my endeavor to become a part of the solution rather than the pollution, I created a petition
to decrease the amount of household plastic waste by urging LEGO to adopt more sustainable
pieces and reduce its carbon footprint. In addition, I offered my own proposal on how this
could be done through the use of natural and renewable resources. This petition continues to
gain supporters and currently has over 800 signatures. The link to my petition
is: http://chng.it/GbPcPSR2
Embracing my tree-hugging spirit, I aim to continually expand and merge my passion for
environmentalism with my other interests. Being an avid geographer as well, I apply my
knowledge of drift patterns and currents to help ameliorate the current plastic pollution in
water bodies. I work closely to map the drift of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a collection
of debris located in the Pacific Ocean, using ocean currents as a method of anticipating its
location and helping forestall its growth. In addition, I have used my passion for mapmaking
to help protect the biodiversity on our planet. Working with organizations such as American
Red Cross and HOT (Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team), I have mapped areas around the
world to help these organizations' efforts to promote environmentalism. These efforts include
determining rates of urbanization in secluded islands around the world and identifying specific
areas that may be fit for the implementation of solar and other forms of renewable energy.
In addition, I am also the President of my school’s Environmental Club, and I have helped
conduct the annual Earth Day Celebration at our school so that students in my area can
actively engage with environmentalism and learn about the importance of saving our planet. I
am also creating my school's first environmental magazine that promotes environmental
education.
Striving to accomplish the same mission as Dublin CAP, I would love to start an
Environmental Youth Council in Dublin. I think that this could be a great way for the youth
in Dublin to be educated on important environmental issues in our community. In the council,
the members could discuss plans to implement cleanup programs to beautify our community
and could organize events to raise awareness about the problems that our planet faces. I
believe that this is an amazing opportunity for the youth in Dublin to feel a part of the solution
to the climate change problem, and I think that this will encourage them to lead their own
environmental initiatives in Dublin. In addition, the council could create an environmental
curriculum that can be offered to all students and members of our community. The
Environmental Youth Council can serve as an open structured council, where members can
bring their ideas to the table about preserving the environment, and, with the resources that we
have, we can bring these plans to fruition. Currently, no other city in the Tri-Valley has such a
council, and I believe that Dublin can take pride in setting a precedent for other cities in our
area.
I am also a 2-term member of the Dublin Youth Advisory Committee (YAC). Although YAC
focuses on improving the well-being of the youth community in Dublin by
organizing/volunteering at community events, I believe that this Environmental Youth Council
will be distinct in that it will be solely focused on one of our city's priorities: creating a
greener future for all of our residents. I also believe that this proposed council aligns very well
with your recent "Dublin Climate Action Plan 2023 and Beyond" and supplements Dublin's
continual commitment to a sustainable future.
As a fervent advocate for environmentalism, I want to share my passion for improving our
planet with other youth members of our city. Please let me know your thoughts on my idea
to start an Environmental Youth Council.
I would greatly appreciate a chance to present my proposal for your consideration via a
brief meeting.
Thank you so much for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you!
Thank you,
Romal Mitr
(925) 549-4567
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
August 19, 2020
David Haubert, Mayor SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL
City of Dublin
Attn: Dublin City Council
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
council@dublin.ca.gov
RE: City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond
Dear Mayor Haubert and Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan 2030 and
Beyond (CAP). The Western Propane Gas Association (WPGA) seeks to be a valuable contributor in both
the development of the CAP and the policies and procedures that may emerge as a result of these
discussions.
WPGA would like to emphasize that while we applaud decarbonization efforts, we believe that the
Council should take a comprehensive approach toward providing consumers with clean energy solutions
and low-carbon fuel options.
The propane industry is proud of the role we play in providing an affordable, clean energy for
communities across California. Propane is non-methane and provides residents with a reliable, non-toxic
energy source at a cheaper rate than electricity. The advent of renewable propane has also dramatically
changed propane’s value proposition. As the California Energy Commission (CEC) and Council continue
to develop building decarbonization strategies, WPGA hopes the Council will recognize the role that both
propane and renewable propane can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector.
As I am sure the Council is aware, if the Council decides to move forward with Measure EE-1 to adopt an
All-Electric Building reach code for new construction, the city will have to consider and show cost
effectiveness for the proposed reach codes. As WPGA has interacted with other cities across the state, we
have developed serious concerns with the cost effectiveness studies that a number of local cities are using
to adopt reach codes. The data we have seen thus far does not appear to calculate the true cost of
plumbing a house with propane. There is no substantial cost differential between building with propane in
comparison to electric, especially once you factor in the cost of the energy. If the costs for all sectors are
not analyzed in the study, it is impossible for local cities or the State to deem these efforts as truly “cost
effective.”
Last Fall, we saw millions of Californians left in the dark and cold due to Public Safety Power Shut Offs
(PSPS) and even just this last week residents were stranded in the heat due to rolling blackouts. These
occurrences are a prime example as to why relying on a single power source is unacceptably risky and
accentuate the need for both energy diversity and resiliency across the state. Whereas, during the PSPS
events, countless individuals were able to power their homes, stay warm and ensure that essential life
sustaining equipment was not turned off during the shut offs because their homes were also plumbed with
propane. We believe that any proposed strategy within the CAP should ensure that residents across the
state have much needed access to both clean energy diversity and resiliency options.
Unfortunately, the CEC and numerous local municipalities have developed reach codes without
consideration of the PSPS events or COVID-19 pandemic. This Council has the insight to understand the
impact of these events and can make a more informed decision that supports clean energy and will benefit
all residents.
Climate change and decarbonization is a complex challenge that requires deployment of all clean energy
sources. Wind, solar, and other renewable fuels – like renewable propane – all have to factor in the
equation of how to combat one of the most critical issues of our time.
The Western Propane Gas Association appreciates your work in this area and hope the Council and staff
take a holistic view of the complementary role propane plays alongside decarbonization efforts including
solar, wind and other renewable fuels.
Sincerely,
Ben Granholm
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
Sincerelyy,,
BeBen Granholm
375 BEALE STREET, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO CA • 94105 • 415.771.6000 •www.baaqmd.gov
August 24, 2020
Rebecca Parnes
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94569
RE: Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond
Dear Ms. Parnes,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) staff has reviewed
the Initial Study – Negative Declaration (IS-ND) for the Dublin Climate
Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030). The City of Dublin proposes to
adopt the CAP 2030 to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by 48,058 MTCO2e by 2025, and 73,452 MTCO2e by 2030, to
achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by
2030. CAP 2030 is also intended to set the City on the path to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2045. In 2028, City staff will initiate the development of
a new CAP to establish new strategies and measures to ensure its 2045
carbon neutrality goal is achieved. CAP 2030 and the Draft IS-ND would, if
approved, also be useful in streamlining CEQA review for projects that are
consistent with the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist.
The CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist is a proposed
City of Dublin CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist for
proposed projects, to ensure consistency with the City’s proposed
quantitative CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds, for use in evaluating
whether a plan or project’s GHG emissions would result in a potentially
significant environment impact under CEQA.
Air Quality
Though Air Quality impacts were determined to be less than significant, and
due solely to measures involving the installation of clean technology and
other strategies to promote GHG reductions, Air District staff encourages
the City to consider the following for all construction projects associated
with CAP 2030 implementation to further mitigate GHGs and protect public
health from air pollutants from construction equipment:
x Require construction vehicles to operate with Tier 4 or the
highest tier engines commercially available.
x Require Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all
construction projects (Table 8-2), and require Additional
Construction Mitigation Measures for Projects with Emissions
Above the Threshold included in the Air District’s CEQA Guidelines:
ALAMEDA COUNTY
John J. Bauters
Pauline Russo Cutter
Scott Haggerty
Nate Miley
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
John Gioia
David Hudson
Karen Mitchoff
(Secretary)
Mark Ross
MARIN COUNTY
Katie Rice
NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
VACANT
Shamann Walton
Tyrone Jue
(SF Mayor’s Appointee)
SAN MATEO COUNTY
David J. Canepa
Carole Groom
Davina Hurt
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Margaret Abe-Koga
Cindy Chavez
(Vice Chair)
Liz Kniss
Rod G. Sinks
(Chair)
SOLANO COUNTY
James Spering
Lori Wilson
SONOMA COUNTY
Teresa Barrett
Shirlee Zane
Jack P. Broadbent
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO
Rebecca Parnes August 24, 2020
Page 2
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
x Review the Air District’s CEQA website which contains tools and
resources to assist lead agencies in analyzing air quality and
GHG impacts. These tools include guidance on quantifying local
emissions and exposure impacts and can be found on the Air District’s
website:https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-
environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. If the Plan requires a site-
specific analysis, please contact Air District staff to obtain the most
recent data.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Air District staff commends the City of Dublin in establishing targets in CAP
2030 that align with the State’s SB 32 GHG reduction goals for 2030, and
discussing how the CAP 2030 provides a pathway—though not quantified—
toward meeting the State’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 (Executive
Order B-55-18). Throughout the document, the City states that as
implementation of CAP 2030 progresses, regular assessments will be
performed to determine progress toward the 2030 and 2045 targets and
enable adjustments to be made including the adoption of additional
mandatory measures. The inclusion of a well-articulated vision (Section 1.0
What Will Dublin Look Like?) helps communicate the intent and targets of
CAP 2030 and provides a reference point for public engagement. The Air
District included a similar vision section in its 2017 Clean Air Plan and has
found it to be very useful in helping communicate the goals and action
strategy of the Clean Air Plan. Air District staff offers the following comments
both in support of, and to strengthen, GHG mitigations in CAP 2030:
x Through measure CF-1: Opt-Up to 100% Renewable and Carbon-
Free Electricity, CAP 2030 identifies opting up all community electricity
accounts to East Bay Community Energy’s Renewable 100% product
as the lead measure for reducing GHG emissions. Staff concurs that
this is an important and aggressive strategy to meeting the City’s GHG
reduction goals. With 100% renewable electricity, CAP 2030’s
measures to electrify new construction and existing building stock—
through measures EE-1: Achieve All-Electric New Building
Construction and EE-4: Develop an Existing Building Electrification
Plan—will have a significant impact on GHG emissions. Staff strongly
advises the City to implement these measures as broadly as possible,
capturing all building types and using mandatory approaches to
ensure compliance. Staff also encourages the City to visit the Clean
Building Compass, a web-based tool the Air District recently launched
as a resource for local governments which includes information on
Rebecca Parnes August 24, 2020
Page 3
model policies and practices:
http://www.buildingdecarb.org/compass.html.
x CAP 2030 includes an aggressive approach to building out the electric
vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, including a mandatory ordinance
that would require all new commercial and multifamily buildings to
include 25% of parking spaces as “EV Ready” (conduit and electrical
panel capacity installed), and 3% of parking spaces required to have
operable Level 2 EV charging stations.This exceeds the requirements
of California’s CalGreen Tier 2 building code and supports the Air
District’s efforts to achieve a goal of 90% of vehicles in the Bay Area
being zero emissions by 2050.
x CAP 2030 includes measure SM-3: Develop a Transportation Demand
Management Plan which includes a variety of strategies to reduce
vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Staff suggests the City
add to this measure a discussion of how COVID-19 shelter-in-place
policies have changed traditional commute patterns, and include
strategies designed to optimize trip reduction impacts from shelter-in-
place into the future, such as greater emphasis on remote work and
active transportation. While this period of time is challenging, it
provides opportunities to rethink local circulation patterns and mode
shifting. Staff encourages the City to incorporate Air District efforts into
new strategies, including the Commuter Benefits Program
(https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/commuter-benefits)
and the Cut the Commute Pledge
(https://www.sparetheair.org/reduce-your-impact/cut-the-
commute/take-the-pledge).
x Measure MM-1: Achieve the Organic Waste Reduction Requirements
of SB 1383, provides a general description of actions the City will take
to develop policies and practices to meet the State’s organics waste
diversion goals under AB1383. CAP 2030 estimates GHG reductions
that will occur assuming the City meets the AB1383 waste diversion
goals. Without clearer identification of specific actions the City will take
to meet these goals, there is great uncertainty these goals can be met.
Staff acknowledges this measure states the City will “adopt a plan and
associated policies/ordinances required for the successful
implementation of SB 1383.” However, staff suggests CAP 2030
include a more specific description of the types of policies and
ordinances the City will consider.
x Overall, this is a strong and thoughtful plan that reflects innovative
thinking, including looking at lifecycle costs and embodied emissions
of new projects. The monitoring plan includes three-year GHG
inventories and annual assessments of measures with the goal of
Rebecca Parnes August 24, 2020
Page 4
adjusting mid-stream as necessary to meet the 2030 target. Staff
recommends that the City identify a staff position that is entrusted with
the coordination and implementation of the Climate Action Plan.
Experience has shown that jurisdictions that have dedicated staff to
implement their climate action plans have greater success in
progressing towards their GHG reduction targets. Staff also
recommends CAP 2030 include a checklist for new projects to
demonstrate consistency with the plan.
Air District staff commends the City for addressing the critical issue of climate
change through local action and for the achievements the City has already
made in reducing GHG emissions. By addressing the issues and suggestions
in this letter, Air District staff believes that CAP 2030 would be more likely to
achieve its GHG reduction target, thereby being in a better position to
support streamlining for future projects under CEQA.
Environmental Justice
Air District staff also commends the City for calling out the climate co-benefit
of equity and inclusion in CAP 2030, and specifically community-driven
climate resilience planning approaches. In addition to this co-benefit and
these considerations, Air District staff recommends applying an equity lens
when implementing CAP 2030 and conducting a Racial Equity Impact
Assessment of CAP 2030. The City of Oakland conducted a Racial Equity
Impact Assessment and Implementation Guide which can serve as a good,
local example and is located here:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/racial-equity-impact-assessment-and-
implementation-guide. In addition to these overarching recommendations, Air
District staff recommends the following to strengthen equity throughout CAP
2030:
x Consider the cumulative impact, and potential unintended cost or
displacement impacts,on communities when implementing CAP
2030 measures.
x Ensure CAP 2030 is integrated and aligned with the City of
Dublin’s General Plan,specifically for equity considerations and
outcomes.
Rebecca Parnes August 24, 2020
Page 5
Air District staff is available to assist the City in addressing these comments.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss Air District
recommendations further, please contact Kelly Malinowski, Senior
Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-8673 or kmalinowski@baaqmd.gov.
Sincerely,
Greg Nudd
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
CC: BAAQMD Director John J. Bauters
BAAQMD Director Pauline Russo Cutter
BAAQMD Director Scott Haggerty
BAAQMD Director Nate Miley