Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12. Exhibit B to Attachment 10 Final EIR At Dublin Final EIR | October 2018 At Dublin Final EIR | October 2018 State Clearinghouse No. 2018012027 City of Dublin At Dublin Table of Contents | Page i Final EIR 10/23/18 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-1 3 Changes to the Draft EIR 3-1 List of Tables Table 2-1: List of Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR ............................................... 2-1 City of Dublin At Dublin Introduction| Page 1-1 Final EIR 10/23/18 1 Introduction The At Dublin Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 6, 2018, to August 20, 2018, as assigned by the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and consistent with CEQA regulations. Copies of the document were distributed to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment. This At Dublin Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and state and local CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the City, as CEQA Lead Agency. This Final EIR, together with the Draft EIR, technical appendices, and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process, as those documents may be modified by the City Council at the time of certification, will constitute the Final EIR, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, and the City of Dublin’s environmental document reporting procedures. 1.1 Document Organization and Framework This FEIR is organized as follows: Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this report. Section 2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft EIR. This section also contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the responses, an index number (e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 2-1) has been assigned to each comment and to its corresponding responses. Section 3 contains changes to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments by agencies and interested persons. City staff has reviewed the comment letters, draft responses and information generated in the course of preparing the responses and determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information that requires a recirculation period for further public comment under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in Section 15088.5. 1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be, “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of At Dublin City of Dublin Page 1-2 | Introduction Final EIR 10/23/18 the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-1 Final EIR 10/23/18 2 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR 2.1 Agency, Organization, and Individual Comments on the Draft EIR This section includes all written comments received on the Draft EIR and the City’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the Draft EIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the Draft EIR text are shown in underline for additions and strikeout for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period: Table 2-1: List of Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR Comment Letter No. Commenting Agency / Organization / Individual Date Agencies 1 California Department of Transportation, District 4 August 20, 2018 2 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 24, 2018 3 Alameda County Transportation Commission August 16, 2018 4 Dublin San Ramon Services District August 16, 2018 5 City of Pleasanton August 20, 2018 Organizations 6 Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No. 304 August 15, 2018 7 Dublin Residents for Responsible Development August 20, 2018 Individuals 8 Christina Wu August 17, 2018 9 Shannon Wing August 17, 2018 10 Akira and Shannon Wing August 17, 2018 11 Estela Victoria August 20, 2018 12 Patricia Burroughs August 20, 2018 Received Post Deadline 13 City of Livermore August 23, 2018 Ms. Million, City of Dublin August 20, 2018 Page3 compliance withCEQA, PRC 5024.S, andthe SBR, all constructionwithln60feet of the find shall cease ap.d the Caltrans District 4 Office ofCµltural Resource Studies (OCRS) shallbe immecliatelycontactedat (510) 622-1673. Encroachment Peniiit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state right-of .. way requires an ,encroachment permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply; a completed encroachment pen11it application, environmental documentation, and six (6) sets of plans clearlyindkating state right�of�way must be. submitted to: Office of Permits, California DOT, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660. Tmffic--related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment pennit process. See the website. lhlk: below for moreinformation: http://www.dot..ca.gov/hq/traffops/deve1opserv/petmits/. Lead.Agency As the Lead Agency, the City of Dublin.is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements tothe STN. The project's fair.share coi1tribution, financing, scheduling, implementation resporisibilities and Lead Agency monitoring shoµld be :folly discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Furthermore, this project meets the criteria to be deemed of statewide, regional, or areawid� significance per CEQA Guidelines § 15206. The DEIR should be submitted to MTC, the Association .of Bay Area Govermnents and the Alameda County Transportation Commission for review and comment. Thank you again for including Cal trans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regardingthis letter, please contact Jannette Ramirez at (510) 286'-5535 or jannette.ramirez@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, �f"PATRICIA MAURICE District Branch Chief Local .qeveloprnent � Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Proi>ide a safe, s11sl(Ji11able,. /11/e:graled (md efficie111 · 1rauspoi·/atio11 sys1em to eirlu/1/ce Califomia 's econo,ny and livability" EXHIBIT A 1    2656 29th Street, Suite 201  Santa Monica, CA 90405    Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.    (949) 887‐9013   mhagemann@swape.com  August 15, 2018    Nirit Lotan    Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo  601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000  South San Francisco, CA 94080    Subject: Comments on the At Dublin Project  Dear Ms. Lotan,    We have reviewed the July 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the Eastern Specific Plan  (updated September 2016), and the October 3, 2017 Staff Report for the At Dublin Project (“Project”)  located in the City of Dublin (“City”). The Project proposes to construct up to 454,000 square feet of  commercial space and 680 residential units across six different planning areas (PA) (PA‐1, PA‐2a, PA‐2b,  PA‐2c, PA‐3, and PA‐4) of the 79.7‐acre project site over three phases of construction (Phase 1, Phase  2a, and Phase 2b). The 680 residential units will include 300 apartment units, 200 townhouses, and 180  single‐family homes that will be constructed across PA‐2b, PA‐2c, PA‐3, and PA‐4. The 454,000 square  feet of commercial uses would include one to two hotels with 240 guest rooms, 215,000 square feet of  retail space, and 3,000 square feet of community space across PA‐1 and PA‐2b. PA‐2a will also be  constructed with a theater, specialty restaurants, and general retail uses, however the DEIR fails to  specify the these land use sizes.   Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s Air Quality and  Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts. As a result, emissions and health impacts associated with construction  and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated  Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the  potential air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts the Project may have on the surrounding  environment.  2    Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version  CalEEMod.2016.3.2 ("CalEEMod").1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site  specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and  typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user  can change the default values and input project‐specific values, but the California Environmental Quality  Act (CEQA) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.2 Once all of the values are  inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and  "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in  calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions, and make known which default values were changed as  well as provide a justification for the values selected.3    When we reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files, found in Appendix B, we found that several of  the values inputted into the model were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a  result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are greatly underestimated. An updated  DEIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the  impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.  Failure to Include All Land Uses Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that not all of the land uses proposed by  the DEIR were included in the Project’s CalEEMod model. As a result, the Project’s construction and  operational emissions are underestimated.  According to the DEIR, the proposed Project will construct “a mixed‐use development that would allow  up to 454,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 680 residential units” (p. 3‐3). The DEIR goes  onto say, “PA‐1 would include one or two hotels with up to 240 rooms (maximum 74 feet in height),  approximately 215,000 square feet of retail uses, and approximately 3,000 square feet of community  uses for a total of up to 370,000 square feet of commercial uses” (p. 3‐6). In regard to PA‐2, the DEIR  states, “PA‐2a would contain commercial uses including a theater, specialty restaurants, and general  retail uses. PA‐2b would contain a five and a half‐story, approximately 362,772 square‐foot (272,000 net  rentable square feet) apartment building with up to 300 residential units surrounding a parking garage”  (p. 3‐6). Furthermore, PA‐2c would consist of 200 townhomes and PA‐3 and PA‐4 would consist of 180  single‐family homes (p. 3‐6). Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files, however, demonstrates that  all commercial uses were modeled as a hotel or strip mall. The Project Applicant failed to model the                                                               1 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 Website Archive, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download‐model‐ 2013  2 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, pp. 2, 9, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6  3 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, pp. 7, 13, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (A key feature of the CalEEMod program is the “remarks”  feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a “user defined” value.  These remarks are  included in the report.)  3    theater or specialty restaurants that will be constructed on PA‐2a (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp.  1, pp. 88, pp. 168).    As you can see above, the Project Applicant failed to include the movie theater and the specialty  restaurants as individual land uses and modeled these land uses as part of the strip mall instead. As  previously mentioned, the land use type and size features are used throughout CalEEMod to determine  default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations.4 For example, the square  footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted  (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy  impacts). Similarly, the acreage is used to determine the amount of ground to be prepared, graded,  paved, etc.5 Furthermore, CalEEMod assigns each land use type with its own set of energy usage  emission factors.6 By failing to model the theater and specialty restaurants that the DEIR states will be  constructed during PA‐2a, the emissions that would be produced during construction and operation of  these land uses are unaccounted for, and as a result, the Project’s emissions are greatly underestimated.  Incorrectly Applied Mitigation Measure to Construction Emissions The Project Applicant recommends mitigation measures in order to reduce construction emissions.  According to Mitigation Measure AQ‐2.2 (MM AQ‐2.2),    “Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to   the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment   greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 off‐  road emissions standards” (p. 6‐33).                                                               4 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user‐39‐s‐guide2016‐3‐1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 17  5 CalEEMod User’s Tips, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/Model/2013.2.2/caleemod‐usertips‐april2014.pdf?sfvrsn=0, p. 27, p. 11  6 CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix‐d2016‐3‐1.pdf?sfvrsn=2  4    Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that this mitigation measures was incorrectly applied  for two reasons: (1) the model assumed that Tier 4 Final engines would be used; and (2) construction  equipment with less than 50 horsepower was assumed to be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines.  First, the excerpt below demonstrates that emissions were modeled assuming that all 144 pieces of off‐ road construction equipment would be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines (see excerpt below)  (Appendix B, pp. 3‐4, pp. 90‐91, pp. 170‐171).      The Project Applicant assumes that all of the equipment used during the construction of the Project  would be mitigated with Tier 4 Final equipment. This specification as to what type of Tier 4 equipment  will be used (i.e., Tier 4 Interim engines or Tier 4 Final engines), however, is not clearly stated in MM AQ‐ 2.2.   5    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has slowly adopted more stringent  standards to lower the emissions from off‐road construction equipment since 1994. Since that time, Tier  1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 4 Final construction equipment has been phased in over time.  Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest burning equipment and therefore has the lowest emissions  compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment (see excerpt below):7    As demonstrated in the figure above, Tier 4 Final equipment has lower emissions than Tier 4 Interim  equipment. Therefore, since MM AQ‐2.2 fails to specify whether or not the Project will use Tier 4  Interim or Tier 4 Final equipment, it is incorrect to model emissions assuming that Tier 4 Final  equipment will be used for all 144 pieces of construction equipment. Until the Project Applicant  specifies that the Project will actually use Tier 4 Final equipment for all pieces of equipment over 50  horsepower, the Project’s potential impacts should not be evaluated assuming the use of this cleaner  burning equipment.  Second, as shown above, the CalEEMod output files demonstrate that 144 pieces of construction  equipment will be mitigated. However, MM AQ‐2.2 only applies to construction equipment greater than  50 horsepower (p. 6‐33). Review of the “Offroad Equipment” table in the CalEEMod output file  demonstrates that of the 144 pieces of construction equipment, three welders will only have 46  horsepower engines (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 10‐11, pp. 96‐97, pp. 175‐176).                                                               7 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August  2015, available at:  https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction_Ordinance_2015.pdf, p.  6  6          Since these three welders are less than 50 horsepower, MM AQ‐2.2 does not apply to these pieces of  equipment. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to model emissions assuming that any of the welders  7    would be equipped with any Tier 4 equipment. As a result, construction emissions are underestimated  and the CalEEMod model provided within the DEIR should not be used to determine Project significance.  Failure to Assess Feasibility of Obtaining Tier 4 Final Equipment Regardless of the fact that the Project Developer incorrectly modeled the Project’s emissions assuming  use of Tier 4 Final engines, the DEIR fails to assess the feasibility of obtaining 144 pieces of Tier 4 Final  equipment for Project construction (Appendix B, pp. 4, pp. 91, pp. 171). Due to the limited number of  Tier 4 Final construction equipment available, the Project Developer should have assessed the feasibility  in obtaining engines equipped with Tier 4 Final engines for construction equipment. By failing to  demonstrate how the Project will actually comply with this mitigation measure, this measure is  unenforceable and thus, the Project Developer cannot claim the emissions reductions from this  measure.  The U.S. EPA’s 1998 nonroad engine emission standards were structured as a three‐tiered progression.   Tier 1 standards were phased‐in from 1996 to 2000 and Tier 2 emission standards were phased in from  2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards, which applied to engines from 37‐560 kilowatts (kW) only, were phased  in from 2006 to 2008.  The Tier 4 emission standards were introduced in 2004 and were phased in from  2008 to 2015. 8 These tiered emission standards, however, are only applicable to newly manufactured  nonroad equipment.  According to the U.S. EPA, “if products were built before EPA emission standards  started to apply, they are generally not affected by the standards or other regulatory requirements.”9   Therefore, pieces of equipment manufactured prior to 2000 are not required to adhere to Tier 2  emission standards, and pieces of equipment manufactured prior to 2006 are not required to adhere to  Tier 3 emission standards.  Construction equipment often lasts more than 30 years; as a result, Tier 1  equipment and non‐certified equipment are currently still in use.10 It is estimated that of the two million  diesel engines currently used in construction, 31 percent were manufactured before the introduction of  emissions regulations.11  Although Tier 4 engines are currently being produced and installed in new off‐road construction  equipment, the vast majority of existing diesel off‐road construction equipment in California is not  equipped with Tier 4 engines.12 In a 2010 white paper, the California Industry Air Quality Coalition  estimated that approximately 7% and less than 1% of all off‐road heavy duty diesel equipment in                                                               8 Emission Standards, Nonroad Diesel Engines, available at:  https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php#tier3   9 “Frequently Asked Questions from Owners and Operators of Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and Equipment Certified  to EPA Standards.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 2012. Available at:  http://www.epa.gov/oms/highway‐diesel/regs/420f12053.pdf   10 “Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction.” Northeast Diesel Collaborative, August 2012. Available at:  http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf   11 Northeast Diesel Collaborative Clean Construction Workgroup, available at:  http://northeastdiesel.org/construction.html   12 California Industry Air Quality Coalition White Paper, p. 3, available at: http://www.agc‐ ca.org/uploadedFiles/Member_Services/Regulatory‐Advocacy‐Page‐PDFs/White_Paper_CARB_OffRoad.pdf  8    California was equipped with Tier 2 and Tier 3 engines, respectively.13 Similarly, based on information  and data provided in the San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San  Francisco Public Projects, the availability of Tier 3 equipment is extremely limited. In 2014, 25% of all off‐ road equipment in the state of California were equipped with Tier 2 engines, approximately 12% were  equipped with Tier 3 engines, approximately 18% were equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines, and only  4% were equipped with Tier 4 Final engines (see excerpt below).14        As demonstrated in the figure above, Tier 4 Interim and Tier 4 Final equipment only accounts for 18%  and 4%, respectively, of all off‐road equipment currently available in the state of California. Thus, by  stating that the Project proposes to use Tier 4 equipment during construction, the Project Developer’s  analysis is relying on a fleet of construction equipment that only accounts for 22% of all off‐road  equipment currently available in the state of California. Therefore, by failing to evaluate the feasibility of  implementing Tier 4 mitigation into the Project’s construction phases, the Project’s construction  emissions are underestimated. Thus, the significance determination made within the DEIR should not be  relied upon to determine Project significance.   Failure to Account for All Imported Grading Material Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project Applicant fails to model all  of the soil import expected to occur during the grading phase of construction. As a result, the Project’s  construction emissions are underestimated.  According the DEIR, “the project would require an estimated 433,000 cubic yards of cut and 526,600  cubic yards of fill for a net import of approximately 93,600 cubic yards of soil” (p. 3‐10). However, review  of the CalEEMod model demonstrates that the model estimates that 50,000 cubic yards of soil will be                                                               13 "White Paper: An Industry Perspective on the California Air Resources Board Proposed Off‐Road Diesel  Regulations." Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, available at: http://www.agc‐ ca.org/uploadedFiles/Member_Services/Regulatory‐Advocacy‐Page‐PDFs/White_Paper_CARB_OffRoad.pdf   14 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August  2015, available at:  https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction_Ordinance_2015.pdf, p.  6  9    imported to the Project site during the grading phase of construction (see excerpt below) (Appendix B,  pp. 5, pp. 92, pp. 172).     As you can see in the excerpt above, the Project Applicant underestimates the amount of grading import  by 43,600 cubic yards of soil. This underestimation presents a significant issue, as the inclusion of the  entire amount of material export and import within the model is necessary to calculate emissions  produced from material movement, including truck loading and unloading, and additional hauling truck  trips.15 As a result, emissions generated during Project construction are underestimated.  Updated Analysis Indicates Significant Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions In an effort to accurately determine the Project’s construction and operational emissions, we prepared  an updated CalEEMod model of the Project that includes more site‐specific information and corrected  input parameters. In an updated model, we included the total amount of soil grading import.   Additionally, we accounted for the specialty restaurants and theater that would be built on PA‐2a in the  mixed‐use part of the development. The DEIR failed to specify the land use sizes of the restaurants or  theaters. However, according to Table 3‐2 of the DEIR, the mixed‐use portion of the project, or the  entire PA‐2 site, will have 84,500 square feet of commercial space (see table below) (Table 3‐2, p. 3‐4).    According to the DEIR, PA‐2b will contain 8,000 square feet of retail space (p. 3‐6). Since the Project  Applicant fails to state the land use sizes of the restaurant, theater, or additional retail that will be  constructed on PA‐2a, we conservatively assumed that the remaining 76,500 square feet of commercial  space would be equally divided between those three land uses. Therefore, we modeled emissions  assuming that the PA‐2 portion of the project will be constructed with the following commercial land  use sizes:                                                               15 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user‐39‐s‐guide2016‐3‐1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 3, 26.  10    PA‐2 Commercial Land Use Sizes  Land Use Planning Area Size (ft2)  Movie Theater (No Matinee) PA‐2a 25,500  Quality Restaurant PA‐2a 25,500  Strip Mall PA‐2a, PA‐2b 33,500  Total   84,500    Finally, we did not include the Tier 4 Final mitigation, as the Project Applicant fails to assess the  feasibility in obtaining this equipment. However, we did model emissions assuming the 141 pieces of  equipment above 50 horsepower would be equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines and the 3 welders  below 50 horsepower would not have any mitigation, in order to demonstrate the actual reductions that  would be achieved by MM AQ‐2.2.  When correct, site‐specific input parameters are used to model emissions, we find that the Project’s  construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions increase significantly when compared to the  DEIR’s model. Furthermore, we find that the Project’s construction‐related NOx emissions exceed the 10  tons per year (tons/year) threshold set forth by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District  (BAAQMD). Additionally, we find the Project’s operational ROG and NOx emissions also exceed the 10  tons/year thresholds set forth by the BAAQMD (see table below).  Maximum Mitigated Construction Emissions (tons/year)  Model ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5  DEIR 6.3 18.5 0.15 0.14  SWAPE 6.9 37.1 0.25 0.24  BAAQMD Annual Threshold 10 10 15 10  Exceed? No Yes No No    Maximum Mitigated Operational Emissions (tons/year)  Model ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5  DEIR 11.44 25.44 0.21 0.2  SWAPE 12.14 28.75 0.29 0.28  BAAQMD Annual Threshold 10 10 15 10  Exceed? Yes Yes No No    As demonstrated above, when correct, site‐specific input parameters are used to model emissions,  construction‐related NOx emissions and operational NOx and ROG emissions would exceed BAAQMD  thresholds. Our modeling demonstrates that Project activities will generate higher criteria air pollutant  emissions than what was disclosed in the DEIR. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, since the Project  Applicant failed to assess the feasibility in obtaining Tier 4 equipment, it is likely that the construction  emissions estimates will be higher than what is presented above. As a result, an updated DEIR should be  11    prepared than includes an updated air pollution model to adequately estimate the Project’s emissions,  and additional mitigation should be incorporated to reduce these emissions to the maximum extent  possible.  Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The DEIR’s air quality analysis determines that the Project construction and operational emissions would  exceed thresholds set forth by the BAAQMD (Table 6‐7, p. 6‐26 and Table 6‐9, p. 6‐32). As result, the  Project proposes several mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions (p.  1‐9). However, even after implementation of mitigation, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s  construction‐related air quality impacts would be significant with respect to NOx (Table 6‐7, p. 6‐26) and  operational air quality impacts would be significant with respect to NOx and ROG (Table 6‐9, p. 6‐32).  While it is true that the Project would result in significant NOx and ROG impacts, the DEIR’s conclusion  that these impacts are “significant and unavoidable” is entirely incorrect. According to CEQA,  “CEQA requires Lead Agencies to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts associated  with discretionary projects. Environmental documents for projects that have any significant  environmental impacts must identify all feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce  the impacts below a level of significance. If after the identification of all feasible mitigation  measures, a project is still deemed to have significant environmental impacts, the Lead Agency  can approve a project, but must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to explain why  further mitigation measures are not feasible and why approval of a project with significant  unavoidable impacts is warranted.” 16  As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible  mitigation is considered. Review of the Project’s proposed mitigation measures, however, demonstrates  that not all feasible mitigation is being implemented (p. 1‐9). Therefore, the DEIR’s conclusion that  impacts are significant and unavoidable is unsubstantiated. As a result, additional mitigation measures  should be identified and incorporated in order to reduce the Project’s air quality impacts to the  maximum extent possible. Until all feasible mitigation is reviewed and incorporated into the Project’s  design, impacts from construction‐related NOx emissions and operational NOx and ROG emissions  cannot be considered significant and unavoidable.17  Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR evaluates the Project’s health‐related impact by preparing a health risk assessment (HRA) that  assesses diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions released during construction (Appendix B, pp. 309).  The DEIR determines that the Project would result in an excess cancer risk of 1.94 in one million and  would therefore result in a less than significant impact (p. 6‐36). We find the DEIR’s finding of a less than  significant impact, however to be incorrect for several reasons: (1) the Project Applicant relies on a                                                               16 http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3‐19‐15.pdf, p. 115 of 125  17 See sections titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions” and “Feasible  Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions” on p. 17 and p. 28, respectively, of this letter.  These measures would effectively reduce construction‐related NOx, operational ROG, operational NOx, and DPM  emissions, as well as GHG emissions.  12    flawed CalEEMod model to determine toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions; (2) the Project Applicant  failed to utilize the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) guidance to calculate  the health risk calculations; and (3) the Project Applicant failed to conduct an operational HRA.  Incorrect Evaluation of Construction‐related Health Risk As previously stated, the DEIR conducts a construction HRA and determines that the health risk would  be less than significant (p. 6‐36). Specifically, the DEIR states,    “The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction is 1.94 per million, which is  below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non‐cancer hazards for DPM would be below  BAAQMD threshold, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and an acute hazard index  of 0.01. Acute and chronic hazards would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 1.0.  As described above, worst‐case construction risk levels based on screening‐level modeling  (AERSCREEN) and conservative assumptions would be below the BAAQMD’s thresholds  Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than significant” (p. 6‐36).  First, the HRA’s finding of a less than significant impact is not valid, as the analysis relies upon emissions  estimates from a flawed CalEEMod model that underestimates the Project’s emissions, as discussed in  the sections above. Because the emissions estimates from the Project’s CalEEMod model are  underestimated, it is reasonable to assume that the Project’s construction‐HRA also underestimates the  health risk posed to sensitive receptors near the Project site.  Second, the DEIR improperly calculates the Project’s construction‐related health risk impact. Review of  the DEIR’s HRA demonstrates that daily breathing rates of 210, 452, 658, and 928 liters per kilogram per  day (L/kg‐day) were used to estimate the cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants and during the  third trimester of pregnancy, respectively, which is inconsistent with guidance created by OEHHA, the  organization responsible for providing recommendations and guidance on how to conduct health risk  assessments in California (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 309).    By doing this, the HRA underestimates the susceptibility of receptors to TAC emissions. As a result, we  find the Project’s health‐related impact to be misrepresented and should not be relied upon to  determine Project significance.  13    OEHHA recommends utilizing the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and the 80th percentile  breathing rates for receptors above 2 years old, which can be found in the 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots  Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.18 Chapter five of this document discusses age‐specific breathing  rates for use in health risk assessments; OEHHA recommends the long‐term daily breathing rates in  Table 5.7 of this document (see excerpt below).19      A comparison of the daily breathing rates used within the Project’s health risk calculations and the daily  breathing rates demonstrated in the excerpt above demonstrates that the Project Applicant utilized  incorrect daily breathing rates for each age group. As a result, the Project’s health risk impacts are  underestimated. As a result, we find the DEIR’s construction HRA and subsequent significance  determination to be incorrect and unreliable and should not be relied upon to determine the  significance of the Project’s construction‐related health impact.   Failure to Conduct an Operational Health Risk Assessment Although the DEIR also conducts an HRA to evaluate the health risk posed to new, on‐site receptors  from exposure to TAC emissions from off‐site stationary sources and mobile sources (p. 6‐37), in  addition to the construction HRA, the DEIR fails to evaluate, whatsoever, the health risk posed to nearby  sensitive receptor as a result of operational emissions generated by the Project. The DEIR states,                                                               18 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf   19 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf   14     “The project would not be considered a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose   a possible risk to off‐site uses. The project involves the future development of mixed‐use project   that would include commercial and residential uses. The project would not include stationary   sources that emit TACs and would not generate a significant amount of heavy‐duty truck trips (a   source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, no impacts to surrounding receptors   associated with TACs would occur” (p. 6‐39 ‐ 6‐40).  The DEIR’s failure to conduct to a quantified operational HRA, however, is incorrect. The omission of a  proper HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by OEHHA. In February of 2015,  OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health  Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.20 This guidance document describes  the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Project operation will generate truck trips,  which will generate additional exhaust emissions, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors  to DPM emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6  months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration  of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident  (MEIR). The DEIR does not provide the expected lifetime of the Project, but we can reasonably assume  that the Project will operate for at least 30 years if not more. Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health  risk impacts from Project operation should have been evaluated by the DEIR. As a result, the DEIR fails  to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitive receptor impacts that may occur as a result of  exposure to the Project’s potentially substantial air pollutant emissions. These recommendations reflect  the most recent HRA policy, and as such, an assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors  from operation should be included in a revised DEIR for the Project.   Updated Analysis Indicates Potentially Significant Impact In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by Project construction and operation to nearby  sensitive receptors, we prepared a simple screening‐level HRA. The results of our assessment, as  described below, provide substantial evidence that the Project’s construction and operational DPM  emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified.   In order to conduct our screening level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening  level air quality dispersion model. 21 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the  OEHHA22 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (CAPCOA)23 guidance as the  appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). A Level 2 HRSA  utilizes a limited amount of site‐specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind                                                               20 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html   21 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at:  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf   22 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf  23 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:  http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8‐6‐09.pdf   15    concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an  unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling  approach is required prior to approval of the Project.  We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s health‐related impact to sensitive receptors using the  mitigated annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the SWAPE annual CalEEMod output files, attached to  this report for reference. According to the Google Earth, the closest sensitive receptor is approximately  69 meters from the Project site. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a  residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the 3rd trimester stage of life. We also assumed  that construction and operation of the Project would occur in quick succession, with no gaps between  each Project phase. The SWAPE CalEEMod model’s annual emissions indicate that construction activities  will generate approximately 502 pounds of DPM over the approximately 5.2 year construction period, or  approximately 1,887 days. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to  simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To  account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated  an average DPM emission rate by the following equation.  ܧ݉݅ݏݏ݅݋݊ ܴܽݐ݁ ቀ ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ቁൌ 502 ݈ܾݏ 1,887 ݀ܽݕݏ ൈ 453.6 ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݈ܾݏ ൈ 1 ݀ܽݕ 24 ݄݋ݑݎݏ ൈ 1 ݄݋ݑݎ 3,600 ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ݏ ൌ ૙.૙૙૚૜ૢૡ ࢍ/࢙   Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.001398 grams per second (g/s). The  SWAPE’s annual CalEEMod output files indicate that operational activities will generate approximately  576 pounds of DPM per year over the 24.8‐years of operation. Applying the same equation used to  estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we estimate the following emission rate for Project  operation.  ܧ݉݅ݏݏ݅݋݊ ܴܽݐ݁ ቀ ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ቁൌ 576 ݈ܾݏ 365 ݀ܽݕݏ ൈ 453.6 ݃ݎܽ݉ݏ ݈ܾݏ ൈ 1 ݀ܽݕ 24 ݄݋ݑݎݏ ൈ 1 ݄݋ݑݎ 3,600 ݏ݁ܿ݋݊݀ݏ ൌ ૙.૙૙ૡ૛ૠૢ ࢍ/࢙   Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.008279 g/s. Construction and  operational activity was simulated as a 79.7‐acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with  dimensions of 1,217 meters by 265 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent  the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy‐duty vehicles, and an initial  vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon  release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model‐default inputs for wind speed and  direction distribution.  The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single‐hour DPM concentrations  from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average  concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single‐hour concentration by 10%.24  For example, for the MEIR the single‐hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project  construction is approximately 0.2549 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying  this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.02549 µg/m3                                                               24 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA‐454R‐92‐019_OCR.pdf   16    for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single‐hour concentration at the MEIR  estimated by AERSCREEN is approximately 1.509 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind.  Multiplying this single‐hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of  0.1509 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.  We calculated the excess cancer risk to the residential receptors located closest to the Project site using  applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the BAAQMD. Consistent with the construction  schedule proposed by the DEIR, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the  entire 3rd trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), the infantile stage of life (0‐2 years), and the first 2.95  years of the child stages of life (2 to 16 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was  used for the remainder of the 30‐year exposure period, which makes up the remainder of the child  stages of life (2 to 16 years) and adult stages of life (16 to 30 years). Consistent with OEHHA guidance,  we used Age Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to  the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.25 According to the updated guidance, quantified cancer risk  should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the first two years of life (infant) and should be multiplied  by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance with  guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.26 Finally, according to  BAAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) Value of 0.85 for the 3rd trimester and  infant receptors, 0.72 for child receptors, and 0.73 for the adult receptors.27 We used a cancer potency  factor of 1.1 (mg/kg‐day)‐1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are  shown below.                        The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR)                                                               25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf   26 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and  Assessment Act,” June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/planning/risk‐ assessment/ab2588‐risk‐assessment‐guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19  “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February  2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf  27 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines.” BAAQMD, January 2016, available at:  http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/rules‐and‐regs/workshops/2016/reg‐2‐5/hra‐ guidelines_clean_jan_2016‐pdf.pdf?la=en  17    Activity Duration  (years)  Concentration  (µg/m3)  Breathing Rate  (L/kg‐day) ASF Cancer Risk  Construction 0.25 0.02549 361 10 2.9E‐07  3rd Trimester Duration 0.25      3rd Trimester Exposure 2.9E‐07  Construction 2.00 0.02549 1090 10 7.1E‐06  Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 7.1E‐06  Construction 2.95 0.02549 573 3 1.4E‐06  Operation 11.05 0.1509 572 3 3.1E‐05  Child Exposure Duration 14.00      Child Exposure 3.2E‐05  Operation 14.00 0.1509 261 1 6.1E‐06  Adult Exposure Duration 14.00      Adult Exposure 6.1E‐06  Lifetime Exposure Duration 30.00     Lifetime Exposure 4.6E‐05    The excess cancer risk posed to adults, children, infants, and during the third trimester of pregnancy at  the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation  are approximately 6.1, 32, 7.1, and 0.29 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk  over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) at the MEIR is approximately 46 in one million.  Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the third trimester of pregnancy to  provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The child and lifetime cancer risks  exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.  It should be noted that our analysis represents a screening‐level HRA, which is known to be more  conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.28 The purpose of a screening‐level HRA,  however, is to determine if a more refined HRA needs to be conducted.  If the results of a screening‐ level health risk are above applicable thresholds, then the Project needs to conduct a more refined HRA  that is more representative of site specific concentrations. Our screening‐level HRA demonstrates that  construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact,  when correct exposure assumptions and up‐to‐date, applicable guidance are used. As a result, a refined  HRA must be prepared to examine air quality impacts generated by Project construction and operation  using site‐specific meteorology and specific equipment usage schedules. A DEIR must be prepared to  adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impact, and should include additional mitigation measures  to reduce these impacts to a less‐than‐significant level.29  Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Construction Emissions Our updated air quality analysis and HRA demonstrates that, when Project activities are modeled  correctly, construction‐related NOx and DPM emissions would result in a higher significant air quality  and health risk impacts than what was stated in the DEIR. Therefore, additional mitigation measures  must be identified and incorporated in a DEIR to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level.                                                                28 http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf p. 1‐5  29 See section titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions” on p. 28 of this  letter. These measures would effectively reduce operational ROG, NOx, and DPM emissions, as well as GHG  emissions.  18      Additional mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation  Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air pollutants such as  particulate matter and NOx.30 DPM and NOx are a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion and are emitted  by on‐road vehicles and by off‐road construction equipment.  Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions  should include consideration of the following measures in an effort to reduce construction emissions.   Require Implementation of Diesel Control Measures The Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC) is a regionally coordinated initiative to reduce diesel  emissions, improve public health, and promote clean diesel technology. The NEDC recommends that  contracts for all construction projects require the following diesel control measures: 31   All diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days must be equipped with emission control  technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85 percent.   As previously mentioned, MM AQ‐2.2 requires that all on‐site equipment 50 horsepower (hp) or  greater be equipped with Tier 4 engines (p. 6‐33). We recommend that all diesel nonroad  construction equipment must have engines that meet EPA Tier 4 Final nonroad emission  standards.   All diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra‐low  sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend32 approved by the original engine manufacturer  with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less.  Repower or Replace Older Construction Equipment Engines The NEDC recognizes that availability of equipment that meets the EPA’s newer standards is limited.33  Due to this limitation, the NEDC proposes actions that can be taken to reduce emissions from existing  equipment in the Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction report.34 These actions include but are not  limited to:        Replacement of older equipment with equipment meeting the latest emission standards.  Engine replacement can include substituting a cleaner highway engine for a nonroad engine. Diesel  equipment may also be replaced with other technologies or fuels. Examples include hybrid switcher  locomotives, electric cranes, LNG, CNG, LPG or propane yard tractors, forklifts or loaders.  Replacements using natural gas may require changes to fueling infrastructure.35 Replacements often                                                               30http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  31 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  32 Biodiesel lends are only to be used in conjunction with the technologies which have been verified for use with  biodiesel blends and are subject to the following requirements:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/reg/biodieselcompliance.pdf  33http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf  34http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf  35 Alternative Fuel Conversion, EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/alternative‐vehicle‐fuels   19    require some re‐engineering work due to differences in size and configuration. Typically, there are  benefits in fuel efficiency, reliability, warranty, and maintenance costs.36  Install Retrofit Devices on Existing Construction Equipment PM emissions from alternatively‐fueled construction equipment can be further reduced by installing  retrofit devices on existing and/or new equipment. The most common retrofit technologies are retrofit  devices for engine exhaust after‐treatment. These devices are installed in the exhaust system to reduce  emissions and should not impact engine or vehicle operation. 37  It should be noted that actual emissions  reductions and costs will depend on specific manufacturers, technologies and applications. Should the  Applicant be unable to obtain Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final off‐road equipment engines for all pieces of  equipment with 50 hp or greater, the Applicant should consider use of engines that meet Tier 3 off‐road  emission standards and engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 2 or Level 3 Verified Diesel  Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).    Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures38 report also proposes the use of electric  and/or hybrid construction equipment as a way to mitigate DPM emissions. When construction  equipment is powered by grid electricity rather than fossil fuel, direct emissions from fuel combustion  are replaced with indirect emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment.  Furthermore, when construction equipment is powered by hybrid‐electric drives, emissions from fuel  combustion are also greatly reduced. Electric construction equipment is available commercially from  companies such as Peterson Pacific Corporation,39 which specialize in the mechanical processing  equipment like grinders and shredders. Construction equipment powered by hybrid‐electric drives is  also commercially available from companies such as Caterpillar40. For example, Caterpillar reports that  during an 8‐hour shift, its D7E hybrid dozer burns 19.5 percent fewer gallons of fuel than a conventional  dozer while achieving a 10.3 percent increase in productivity. The D7E model burns 6.2 gallons per hour  compared to a conventional dozer which burns 7.7 gallons per hour.41  Fuel usage and savings are  dependent on the make and model of the construction equipment used. The Project Applicant should  calculate project‐specific savings and provide manufacturer specifications indicating fuel burned per  hour.   Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures42 report recommends that the Project  Applicant provide a detailed plan that discusses a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to                                                               36 Cleaner Fuels, EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/verified‐diesel‐tech/verified‐technologies‐list‐clean‐diesel    37 Retrofit Technologies, EPA, available at:  https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016‐ 03/documents/420f10027.pdf   38http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  39 Peterson Electric Grinders Brochure, available at:http://www.petersoncorp.com/wp‐ content/uploads/peterson_electric_grinders1.pdf  40 Electric Power Products, available at:http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power‐systems/electric‐power‐ generation.html  41http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  42http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf  20    ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. The system should include strategies such  as requiring engine run time meters on equipment, documenting the serial number, horsepower,  manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment and daily logging of the operating hours of the  equipment. Specifically, for each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or  generator, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a report prior to bringing said  equipment on site that includes:43   Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer,  engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.   The type of emission control technology installed, serial number, make, model, manufacturer,  and EPA/CARB verification number/level.   The Certification Statement44 signed and printed on the contractor’s letterhead.    Furthermore, the contractor should submit to the developer’s representative a monthly report that, for  each onroad construction vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes: 45   Hour‐meter readings on arrival on‐site, the first and last day of every month, and on off‐site  date.   Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.   Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:  o Source of supply  o Quantity of fuel  o Quality of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight).    In addition to these measures, we also recommend that the Applicant implement the following  mitigation measures, called “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices,”46 that are recommended by the  Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD):  1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off‐ road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an  aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project.   The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected  hours of use for each piece of equipment.    The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including  start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on‐site foreman.                                                               43 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  44 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf The  NEDC Model Certification Statement can be found in Appendix A.  45 Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, available  at:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐09/documents/nedc‐model‐contract‐sepcification.pdf  46http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl_10‐2013.pdf  21      This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject  heavy‐duty off‐road equipment.   The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the  project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30‐day period in which no  construction activity occurs.   2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating  that the heavy‐duty off‐road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction  project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet‐ average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent  California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average.   This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory.   Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low‐ emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after‐treatment  products, and/or other options as they become available.   The District’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment  fleet that achieves this reduction.  3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off‐road diesel‐powered  equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in  any one hour.   Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be  repaired immediately. Non‐compliant equipment will be documented and a summary  provided to the lead agency monthly.   A visual survey of all in‐operation equipment shall be made at least weekly.   A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the  duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any  30‐day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall  include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.  4. The District and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine  compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supersede other District, state or federal rules or  regulations.    These measures offer a cost‐effective, feasible way to incorporate lower‐emitting equipment into the  Project’s construction fleet, which subsequently reduces NOx and DPM emissions released during  Project construction. An updated DEIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as  well as include an updated air quality assessment to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are  implemented to reduce construction emissions. Furthermore, the Project Applicant needs to  demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval to ensure  that the Project’s construction‐related emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.   22    Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Determine Significance of Greenhouse Gas Impacts The DEIR determines the significance of the Project’s GHG impact for the Project’s first operational year  by demonstrating compliance with the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which sets a GHG  reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 (p. 10‐15). The CAP was adopted in November  2010 and updated in 201347. Because the CAP was adopted before Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) and  Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) were codified into law, the Project’s GHG impact was also evaluated by calculating  the Project’s emissions in the year 2030 and comparing the emissions to year 2000 levels in order to  determine if the Project would achieve a GHG reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as  mandated in AB 197 and SB 32. Review of the DEIR’s GHG analysis demonstrates that: (1) the DEIR’s  method of using a statewide GHG reduction goal as a CEQA threshold to determine whether the  proposed Project has significant GHG emissions is incorrect; (2) the CAP is not applicable to the Project;  and (3) regardless of if the CAP is applicable, the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the CAP.  As a result, we find the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG  impact to be unsubstantiated and incorrect.    Incorrect Methodology Used to Determine GHG Impact In an effort to comply with CEQA, AB 197, and SB 32 the DEIR compares the Project’s construction and  operational GHG emissions to the emissions that would be generated by the Project in the absence of  any GHG reduction measures, also known as a Business As Usual scenario (BAU). Using this method, the  DEIR concludes that if the Project achieves a minimum 40 percent reduction in GHGs between the BAU  and As Proposed scenarios for 2030, which is consistent with the AB 197 and SB 32 statewide reduction  goals, then the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact (p. 10‐22). This use of these  thresholds to determine whether the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, however, is  flawed and should not be relied upon to determine impact significance, as a recent ruling by the  California Supreme Court in Center for Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of  Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (“Newhall”)  (Newhall Case)48 makes clear.  The Newhall Case  concludes that lead agencies cannot use the statewide GHG emission reduction percentage as the CEQA  threshold to determine whether a specific project‐level proposed Project has significant GHG emissions  without demonstrating with substantial evidence and analysis that such a consistency comparison was  applicable.49 As a result, this method of determining Project significance is incorrect and should not be  relied upon.     The DEIR incorrectly relies on the BAU method to determine the Project’s GHG impacts. According to the  DEIR, the Project would have to achieve a 40 percent reduction from BAU to result in a less than  significant GHG impact. By modeling the Project’s emissions within CalEEMod for the year 2000, the  DEIR takes the statewide reduction goal for 2030 and calculates the percent reduction from BAU  compared to the proposed Project, and subsequently compares the total percent reduction of the                                                               47 https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin‐Climate‐Action‐Plan‐Update‐2013?bidId=, p. 6  48http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S217763.PDF  49http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm  23  proposed Project’s GHG emissions to the statewide GHG reduction goals (p. 10‐23).  Using a straight‐line  comparison between Project‐specific and statewide GHG emission reductions, the At Dublin Project  would reduce its GHG emissions by 47 percent in 2030, which, according to the DEIR, is consistent with  the statewide reduction goal (p. 10‐23). As a result, the DEIR concludes that the Project would have a  less than significant GHG impact (p. 10‐23). The use of a “straight‐line” comparison between Project‐ specific and statewide GHG emissions, both by the Newhall Ranch EIR and the At Dublin Project DEIR,  however, is flawed, because the percent reduction required by the proposed Project at the project‐level  is not directly comparable to the percent reduction required to meet the statewide goal. Since the  Newhall Case prohibits this approach, the City cannot rely on this method for its GHG assessment.  The  City must identify an acceptable method of compliance with CEQA, AB 197, and SB 32 for the Project’s  GHG emissions, and must determine a Newhall‐compliant alternative threshold for the Project‐specific  GHG emissions.  The City’s CAP is Not Applicable to the Project The Project Applicant determines that the Project will generate approximately 14,800.21 metric tons of  carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2e/yr) during the first year of operation (Table 10‐4, p. 10‐ 20). To determine whether the Project will conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulations  adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, however, the DEIR looks into the Project’s  consistency with the measures set forth the in the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) (p. 10‐26).  Using the City’s CAP as significance criteria, the DEIR concludes,  “For 2020, the analysis of the project’s cumulative contribution to climate change and GHG  emissions is the analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable CAP measures that is  provided in Table 10‐7, Project Consistency with the City of Dublin CAP. The project would be  consistent with the applicable CAP reduction measures. Thus, the project would help implement  the CAP, and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the  purpose of reducing GHG emissions. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard”  (p. 10‐26).  As previously mentioned, the City of Dublin’s CAP established a GHG emissions reduction target of 15%  below 2010 levels by 2020.50 The CAP states,  “The 2010 City of Dublin CAP established a reduction target of 20% below business‐as‐usual  GHG emissions by 2020. The updated City of Dublin CAP proposed a reduction target of 15%  below 2010 emissions levels by 2020. This target will be adopted by resolution, as a component  of the CAP. This reduction target establishes a level below which the contribution to GHG  emissions by activities covered under the CAP will be less than cumulatively considerable under  CEQA standards.”51   As you can tell in the excerpt above, the City of Dublin’s CAP is designed to reduce emissions for the  2020 target and, therefore, is only applicable for projects that will be fully operational by 2020. Review  50 https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin‐Climate‐Action‐Plan‐Update‐2013?bidId=, p. 5  51 https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin‐Climate‐Action‐Plan‐Update‐2013?bidId=, p. 10  24    of the DEIR demonstrates that the Project will not begin construction until April 2020 and will be  completed by June 2025 (p. 6‐24). Thus, the first full year of operation will not be until 2026. As a result,  the CAP is not applicable to the Project as the CAP fails to implement a strategy past the 2020 reduction  goals. Since the CAP is not applicable to the Project the Project Applicant cannot claim consistency with  the CAP to determine Project significance.  Failure to Demonstrate Consistency with the CAP Regardless of if the CAP is even applicable to the Project, the DEIR fails to demonstrate consistency with  the CAP for the following reasons: (1) the DEIR fails to make the mitigation measures outlined in the CAP  that the Project would be consistent with binding and enforceable; and (2) the DEIR incorrectly states  that the Project would be consistent with a transportation‐related measure outlined in the CAP.   First, review of the DEIR demonstrates that the Project fails to actually demonstrate compliance with all  of the measures outlined in Table 10‐7, which lists the Project’s consistency with applicable measures  set forth in the CAP, because the DEIR fails to incorporate these measures as mitigation within the  Project’s list of proposed mitigation (Table 10‐7, p. 10‐27). Specifically, the DEIR fails to comply with the  following requirement, as required by Section 15183.5 Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of  Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the CEQA guidelines,     “An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative   impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project,   and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those   requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project.”52  As stated above, CEQA requires the DEIR to identify which requirements apply to the Project and  requires the DEIR make these requirements binding and enforceable to the Project by listing them as  mitigation measures, if they are not already binding and enforceable in the City’s CAP. However, review  of the DEIR demonstrates that the Project fails to include any of the CAP’s measures that the DEIR claims  that the Project would be consistent with as mitigation measures or as mandatory conditions of Project  approval (Table ES‐1, p. 1‐10) (see excerpt below).                                                                       52  https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I872A68805F7511DFBF66AC2936A1B85A?viewType=FullText&origin ationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29  25    Second, the Project Applicant incorrectly states that the Project will be consistent with a transportation‐ related measure identified in the CAP. Specifically, the Project Applicant claims that it will be a Transit‐ Oriented Development (TOD) (see excerpt below) (Table 10‐7, p. 10‐27).    As you can see in the excerpt above, the Project Applicant claims that the Project will be consistent with  the TOD measure because the Project site is within 1.5 miles of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.   The City’s CAP does not include a specific definition of TOD projects. However, Appendix C of the CAP  includes a memorandum from Fehr & Peers transportation consultants titled “City of Dublin Transit  Oriented Development Transportation Impact Fee Assessment”. According to the memorandum, the  consultants have “reviewed data from a variety of sources to develop a likely range of vehicle trip  reductions for transit‐oriented residential development (TOD) adjacent to the Bay Area Rapid Transit  (BART) stations in the City of Dublin.” The memorandum reviews the than‐recent legislation and  research. The recommendation in the memorandum is to take into account “a reduction in vehicle trips  of 25 percent for multi‐family residential developments located in a mixed‐use environment within a  barrier‐free half mile walk of a BART station” (emphasis added). According to the City’s own CAP a  project can account for a trip reduction and, accordingly, emissions reduction, if it is situated within  barrier‐free half mile from the BART station. There is no basis therefore for the DEIR conclusion that the  Project is consistent with the CAP’s measures.   Moreover, BART’s Transit‐Oriented Development Guide states that BART adopted a TOD Policy to  increase TOD development within a half mile of a BART station. The BART Guide goes onto say that,   “Overall, the proportion of transit riders walking to transit is greatest within ¼ mile or less of a   station, typically declining by one‐half between ¼ and ½ miles, and becoming insignificant   beyond ½ mile.”53   Therefore, per BART’s Transit‐Oriented Guide, TOD projects that are more than a half mile from a BART  station do not typically attract a significant amount of transit riders who will walk to the station. Thus,  according to the TOD Guidelines developed by BART, the Project Applicant cannot claim consistency  with this measure, as the number of transit‐oriented riders coming to the station would be insignificant  since the Project site is approximately 1.5 miles away. Thus, the GHG reductions from being a TOD  project are also insignificant.  The Project fails to implement the CAP‐related measures as binding and enforceable within the DEIR and  fails to demonstrate consistency with measure A.1.1 from the CAP. As a result, even though the CAP is                                                               53 “Transit‐Oriented Development Guidelines,” BART, May 2017, available at:  https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_TODGuidelinesFinal2017_compressed_0.pdf, p. 42  26    not applicable to the Project, the Project Applicant fails to demonstrate consistency with the entire City  CAP and therefore should not rely on the CAP to determine Project significance. The Project Applicant  should prepare an updated DEIR with an updated GHG analysis in order to adequately evaluate the  Project’s potential GHG impact.  Updated Analysis Indicates Significant Greenhouse Gas Impact In an effort to adequately assess the Project’s GHG impact, we relied upon emissions estimates from  SWAPE’s updated CalEEMod model and compared these emissions to the BAAQMD’s bright‐line  threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year. As you can see in the table below, the Project’s total GHG emissions  are approximately 22,157 MT CO2e/year, which is above the significance threshold of 1,100 MT  CO2e/year and significantly higher than the emissions reported by the DEIR (see excerpt below).  Annual Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Emission Source Proposed Project (MT CO2e/yr)  Construction (Amortized) 404  Area 44  Energy 5,233  Mobile 15,673  Waste 504  Water 295  Project Total 22,157  Significance Threshold (MT CO2e/yr) 1,100  Exceed? Yes    As demonstrated in the table above, when we compared the proposed Project’s GHG emissions from  the SWAPE CalEEMod model, we find that the Project would emit approximately 22,157 MT CO2e/year.  The greatly exceeds the BAAQMD’s recommended threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/yr. Until an updated  GHG analysis is prepared in an updated DEIR that adequately evaluates the Project’s total GHG  emissions from all sources, the DEIR should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.  According to the BAAQMD, when the Project’s emissions exceed the 1,100 MT CO2e/year screening‐ level threshold, a more detailed review of the Project’s GHG emissions is warranted.54 BAAQMD  recommends a per service population (SP) efficiency threshold to conduct the detailed review. BAAQMD  proposed efficiency target of 4.6 MT year per service population (MT CO2e/sp/year) for project‐level  analyses and 6.6 MT CO2e/sp/year for plan level projects (e.g., program‐level projects such as general  plans).55 Therefore, per BAAQMD guidance, because the Project’s GHG emissions exceed the BAAQMD’s  1,100 MT CO2e/year screening‐level threshold, the Project’s emissions should be compared to the  proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e/sp/year.                                                               54 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en,  p. 9‐4 ‐ 9‐5  55 http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning‐and‐research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017‐pdf.pdf?la=en,  p. 2‐4, p. 4‐10  27    According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) CEQA & Climate Change  report, service population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs  supported by the project”.56 The DEIR determines that the Project will generate approximately 1,836  residents, however, fails to state the number of employees (Table 15‐4, p. 15‐6). Therefore, based on  the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Level 1 ‐ Developer Fee Justification Study for Los Angeles  Unified School District that lists an employee generation factor of 0.00479 employees per square foot,  we estimated that the Project would generate approximately 2,175 employees (454,000 square feet x  0.00479 employees/square foot).57 Dividing the Project’s GHG emissions by a service population of  4,011 people (1,836 residents + 2,175 employees), we find that the Project would emit 5.52 MT  CO2e/sp/year. When we compare the Project’s per service population GHG emissions to the BAAQMD  efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/sp/year, we find that the Project would result in a significant GHG  impact (see table below).  Annual Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Source Emissions Unit  Total Annual Emissions 22,157 MT CO2e/year  Maximum Service Population 4,011 People  Per Service Population Annual Emissions 5.52 MT CO2e/sp/year  BAAQMD Project Level Efficiency Threshold 4.6 MT CO2e/sp/year  Exceed? Yes ‐    As you can see in the table above, the Project’s total GHG per service population emissions of 5.52 MT  CO2e/sp/year exceed the BAAQMD efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/sp/year, thus resulting in a  potentially significant impact. Based on the results of this analysis, an updated DEIR must be prepared  for the Project, and mitigation should be implemented to mitigate the impact below the level of  significance, as mandated by CEQA.  Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Operational Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project’s GHG emissions may present a potentially significant  impact. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are  applicable to the Project. Additional mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce  operational GHG emissions include, but are not limited to, the following:  58     Use passive solar design, such as: 59,60                                                               56 “CEQA & Climate Change.” & Climate Change.” CAPCOA, January 2008, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA‐White‐Paper.pdf, p. 71‐72.  57 Los Angeles Unified School District, Level 1 ‐ Developer Fee Justification Study for Los Angeles Unified School  District, page 15, March 2014.  58 http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf   59 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental  Documents, September 1997.  60 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997.  28    o Orient buildings and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar, heating during  cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons.   Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of  operation of outdoor lighting.   Develop and follow a “green streets guide” that requires:   o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt;  o Installation of permeable pavement to allow for storm water infiltration; and  o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.61    Implement Project design features such as:  o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight;  o Install high‐albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane;  o Install high‐efficiency HVAC with hot‐gas reheat;  o Install formaldehyde‐free insulation; and   o Use recycled‐content gypsum board.   Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide  information on energy management services for large energy users.   Meet “reach” goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use.   Require all buildings to become “LEED” certified.   Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes.    Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.    Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems  and avoid peak energy use.    Plant low‐VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from  parked vehicles.    Use CARB‐certified or electric landscaping equipment in project and tenant operations; and  introduce electric lawn, and garden equipment exchange program.    Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to infiltrate  on‐site.     In addition to the measures discussed above, the SCAQMD has previously recommended additional  mitigation measures for operational NOx emissions that result primarily from truck activity emissions,  which would also reduce the Project’s operational GHG emissions. Since the Project proposes to  construct 454,000 square feet of combined retail, theater, and restaurant space, these measures would  apply and should be considered. Measures recommended for the Waterman Logistic Center that are  also applicable for this Project’s proposed land uses include:62   Provide electric vehicle charging stations that are accessible for trucks.                                                                61 See Irvine Sustainable Travelways “Green Street” Guidelines;  https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=8617; and Cool Houston Plan;  https://www.harcresearch.org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/CoolHoustonPlan_0.pdf    62  SCAQMD Comment Letter in Response to MND for the Waterman Logistic Center, January 2018, available at:  http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/comment‐letters/2015/january/mndwaterman.pdf  29     Provide electrical hookups at the onsite loading docks and at the truck stops for truckers to plug  in any onboard auxiliary equipment.   Provide minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between truck traffic  and sensitive receptors.   Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the facility.    On‐site equipment should be alternative fueled.   Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.   Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential  areas.   Should the proposed Project generate significant emissions, the Lead Agency should require  mitigation that requires accelerated phase‐in for non‐diesel powered trucks. For example,  natural gas trucks, including Class 8 HHD trucks, are commercially available today. Natural gas  trucks can provide a substantial reduction in emissions, and may be more financially feasible  today due to reduced fuel costs compared to diesel. In the Final CEQA document, the Lead  Agency should require a phase‐in schedule for these cleaner operating trucks to reduce project  impacts.  Furthermore, the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes various  feasible mitigation measures that would reduce on‐site area emissions that are applicable to the  proposed Project’s retail land use, and include, but are not limited to: 63   Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized.   Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution  system.   Installation of dual‐paned or other energy efficient windows.   Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed.   Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off‐white colors that  reflect heat away from buildings.  Finally, additional, feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas  Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels.64  GHG emissions are produced during fuel  combustion, and are emitted by on‐road vehicles and by off‐road equipment. Therefore, to reduce the  Project’s mobile‐source GHG emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made.     Limit Parking Supply  o This mitigation measure will change parking requirements and types of supply within  the Project site to encourage “smart growth” development and alternative  transportation choices by project residents and employees.  This can be accomplished in  a multi‐faceted strategy:   Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements                                                               63 Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2016.  64 http://www.capcoa.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA‐Quantification‐Report‐9‐14‐Final.pdf   30     Creation of maximum parking requirements   Provision of shared parking   Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost  o Unbundling separates parking from property costs, requiring those who wish to  purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost from the property cost. This  removes the burden from those who do not wish to utilize a parking space. Parking  should be priced separately from home rents/purchase prices or office leases.   Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program  o This project can provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes to  incentivize the use of public transport. The project may also provide free transfers  between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly  subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from  parking to offset the cost of such a project.   Provide End of Trip Facilities  o Non‐residential projects can provide "end‐of‐trip" facilities for bicycle riders including  showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces. End‐of‐trip facilities encourage  the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End‐of‐ trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle  commuting.   Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing  o The project can implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information  sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction  strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary  marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may  include:   New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options   Event promotions   Publications   Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program  o The project can provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public  transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority  parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride‐share or use  alternatively fueled vehicles. The project should provide wide parking spaces to  accommodate vanpool vehicles.   Implement Bike‐Sharing Program  o This project can establish a bike‐sharing program to reduce VMTs. Stations should be at  regular intervals throughout the project site.    Price Workplace Parking  o The project should implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This  may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above  market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee  31    parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available  alternatives.  o Though similar to the Employee Parking “Cash‐Out” strategy, this strategy focuses on  implementing market rate and above market rate pricing to provide a price signal for  employees to consider alternative modes for their work commute.   Implement Employee Parking "Cash‐Out"  o The project can require employers to offer employee parking “cash‐out.” The term  “cash‐out” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of  forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost  of the parking space to the employer.   Provide Employer‐Sponsored Shuttle  o The Project could implement an employer‐sponsored shuttle to and from the  Dublin/Pleasanton BART station located 1.5 miles from the Project site.  A shuttle will  typically service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Scheduling  is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of  vehicle and operating cost.  Finally, our air quality analysis demonstrated that operational ROG (also referred to as VOC) emissions  will exceed BAAQMD’s annual thresholds. In an effort to mitigate these measures, the following  mitigation measures should be considered.  Use of Zero‐VOC Emissions Paint The Project Applicant should consider the use of low VOC coatings. The use of zero‐VOC emission paint  has been required for numerous projects that have undergone CEQA review. Zero‐VOC emission paints  are commercially available. The Project Applicant already implements MM AQ‐2.3 which limits the  interior coating to VOC rating to 20 grams/Liter (g/L) and exterior coatings to be less than 100 g/L. We  recommend that the Project Applicant strengthen this measure including use of “super‐compliant”  paints, which have a VOC standard of less than 10 g/L. 65    Use of Material that Do Not Require Paint Using materials that do not require painting is a common mitigation measure where VOC emissions are  a concern. Interior and exterior surfaces, such as concrete, can be left unpainted.     Use of Spray Equipment with Greater Transfer Efficiencies Various coatings and adhesives are required to be applied by specified methods such as electrostatic  spray, high‐volume, low‐pressure (HVLP) spray, roll coater, flow coater, dip coater, etc. in order to  maximize the transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency is typically defined as the ratio of the weight of  coating solids adhering to an object to the total weight of coating solids used in the application process,  expressed as a percentage. When it comes to spray applications, the rules typically require the use of                                                               65 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business‐detail?title=super‐compliant‐coatings  32    either electrostatic spray equipment or HVLP spray equipment. The SCAQMD is now able to certify HVLP  spray applicators and other application technologies at efficiency rates of 65 percent or greater.66     When combined, these measures offer a cost‐effective, feasible way to incorporate lower‐emitting  design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces GHG emissions released during  Project operation, as well as operational NOx, ROG, and DPM emissions.  An updated DEIR must be  prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated GHG analysis to  ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce operational NOx, ROG, and  GHG emissions to below thresholds. The Project Applicant also needs to demonstrate commitment to  the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s operational  GHG emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.  Sincerely,       Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.    Hadley Nolan                                                                   66 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/spray‐equipment‐transfer‐efficiency  Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. • Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011. HADLEY KATHRYN NOLAN SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (678) 551-0836 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: hadley@swape.com EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES B.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETY JUNE 2016 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING • Modeled construction and operational activities for proposed land use projects using CalEEMod to quantify criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. • Organized presentations containing figures and tables that compare results of criteria air pollutant analyses to thresholds. • Quantified ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations using AERSCREEN, a U.S. EPA recommended screening level dispersion model. • Conducted construction and operational health risk assessments for residential, worker, and school children sensitive receptors. • Prepared reports that discuss adequacy of air quality and health risk analyses conducted for proposed land use developments subject to CEQA review by verifying compliance with local, state, and regional regulations. SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Evaluated environmental impact reports for proposed projects to identify discrepancies with the methods used to quantify and assess GHG impacts. • Quantified GHG emissions for proposed projects using CalEEMod to produce reports, tables, and figures that compare emissions to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. • Determined compliance of proposed land use developments with AB 32 GHG reduction targets, with GHG significance thresholds recommended by Air Quality Management Districts in California, and with guidelines set forth by CEQA. PROJECT ANALYST: ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DIRECT TRANSFER FACILITY • Assessed air quality impacts resulting from implementation of a proposed Collection Service Agreement for Exclusive Residential and Commercial Garbage, Recyclable Materials, and Organic Waste Collection Services for a community. • Organized tables and maps to demonstrate potential air quality impacts resulting from proposed hauling trip routes. • Conducted air quality analyses that compared quantified criteria air pollutant emissions released during construction of direct transfer facility to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. • Prepared final analytical report to demonstrate local and regional air quality impacts, as well as GHG impacts. PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF LEAD PRODUCTS FOR PROPOSITION 65 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION • Calculated human exposure and lifetime health risk for over 300 lead products undergoing Proposition 65 compliance review. • Compiled and analyzed laboratory testing data and produced tables, charts, and graphs to exhibit emission levels. • Compared finalized testing data to Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Levels (MADLs) to determine level of compliance. • Prepared final analytical lead exposure Certificate of Merit (COM) reports and organized supporting data for use in environmental enforcement statute Proposition 65 cases. ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Academic Honoree, Dean’s List, University of California, Los Angeles MAR 2013, MAR 2014, JAN 2015, JAN 2016                   ATTACHMENT  1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 598.00 Space 5.38 239,200.00 0 Parking Lot 2,032.00 Space 18.29 812,800.00 0 Hotel 240.00 Room 8.00 348,480.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 300.00 Dwelling Unit 7.89 300,000.00 858 Condo/Townhouse 200.00 Dwelling Unit 12.50 402,944.00 572 Single Family Housing 180.00 Dwelling Unit 23.50 459,476.00 515 Strip Mall 215.00 1000sqft 4.94 215,000.00 0 Movie Theater (No Matinee)25.50 1000sqft 0.59 25,500.00 0 Quality Restaurant 25.50 1000sqft 0.59 25,500.00 0 Strip Mall 33.50 1000sqft 0.77 33,500.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2026Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) At Dublin Project Alameda County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 1 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual Project Characteristics - 2026 operational year because the Applicant's construction schedule ends in 2025 Land Use - land use sizes for PA-2a not provided. Strip Mall on PA-1 is 215,000 sf Mixed Use land use (from PA-2) would have 84,500 sf of commercial land use (Table 3-2, pp. 56). In order to provide a conservative analysis, split the 84,500 sf between the movie theater, strip mall, and restaurants, with an additional 8,000 square feet of retail space being constructed on PA-2b Construction Phase - Construction schedule per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - demolition equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - site preparation equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Grading equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - infratructure equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Building Construction (Commercial) equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Paving (commercial) equipment per the DEIR Off-road Equipment - Building Construction (apartments) equipment per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Building Construction (for sale) equipment per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Paving (For Sale) equipment per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Architectural Coating (Commercial) is the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Architectural Coating (Apartments) per the DEIR. Off-road Equipment - Architectual Coating (For Sale) per the DEIR. Grading - Grading size per the DEIR. Demolition - Trips and VMT - Architectural Coating - architectural coating g/L per the DEIR Vehicle Trips - defaults for Quality restaurant and movie theater because were not included in the DEIR's TIA Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - mitigation per the DEIR Energy Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Water Mitigation - Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 2 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 20.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 20.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 20.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 12.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 18.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 14.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 34.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 3 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 305.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 155.00 653.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 60.00 393.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,550.00 696.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 544.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,550.00 740.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1,550.00 1,044.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 391.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 566.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 566.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 110.00 390.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 4 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/18/2020 6/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/15/2021 9/30/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/10/2020 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/25/2027 9/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/13/2039 6/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/3/2033 4/1/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/12/2039 5/30/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/14/2040 4/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/17/2040 12/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/18/2040 12/1/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/21/2041 5/30/2025 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/11/2020 4/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/19/2020 4/1/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/16/2021 1/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/13/2039 5/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/26/2027 6/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/4/2033 6/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/14/2039 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/15/2040 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2040 10/1/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/19/2040 12/3/2023 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5,224.00 387.50 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 93,600.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 200,000.00 402,944.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 324,000.00 459,476.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 58.44 23.50 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 5 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 6 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 6.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 7.43 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 7.36 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 9.51 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.92 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 42.53 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 7 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 2.9875 32.0936 18.4835 0.0366 6.3904 1.4965 7.8869 3.3408 1.3800 4.7208 0.0000 3,231.703 9 3,231.703 9 0.9503 0.0000 3,255.462 3 2021 7.0230 60.0189 45.4766 0.1174 10.4225 2.4185 12.8410 4.6459 2.2383 6.8842 0.0000 10,592.93 98 10,592.93 98 1.8403 0.0000 10,638.94 62 2022 9.1383 50.0223 47.3331 0.1331 7.5338 1.7824 9.3162 2.6574 1.6571 4.3145 0.0000 12,064.97 50 12,064.97 50 1.7231 0.0000 12,108.05 26 2023 6.7482 25.4478 29.0685 0.0918 4.3234 0.8132 5.1366 1.1687 0.7614 1.9302 0.0000 8,372.690 9 8,372.690 9 0.8252 0.0000 8,393.320 8 2024 3.8839 9.5055 10.6720 0.0388 2.0536 0.2326 2.2861 0.5551 0.2196 0.7747 0.0000 3,550.226 9 3,550.226 9 0.2695 0.0000 3,556.964 2 2025 1.4912 3.0356 3.4961 0.0128 0.6953 0.0682 0.7635 0.1879 0.0644 0.2523 0.0000 1,171.096 0 1,171.096 0 0.0881 0.0000 1,173.297 5 Maximum 9.1383 60.0189 47.3331 0.1331 10.4225 2.4185 12.8410 4.6459 2.2383 6.8842 0.0000 12,064.97 50 12,064.97 50 1.8403 0.0000 12,108.05 26 Unmitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 8 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.6273 11.4007 20.7664 0.0366 6.3810 0.0579 6.4389 3.3385 0.0578 3.3963 0.0000 3,231.700 4 3,231.700 4 0.9503 0.0000 3,255.458 7 2021 3.6210 33.9674 49.9566 0.1174 10.2478 0.2057 10.4535 4.6031 0.1995 4.8025 0.0000 10,592.93 33 10,592.93 33 1.8403 0.0000 10,638.93 97 2022 6.8840 37.0571 52.1091 0.1331 7.2844 0.2512 7.5356 2.5962 0.2409 2.8370 0.0000 12,064.96 89 12,064.96 89 1.7231 0.0000 12,108.04 65 2023 5.7742 21.8527 30.8714 0.0918 4.1070 0.1201 4.2271 1.1156 0.1157 1.2313 0.0000 8,372.687 9 8,372.687 9 0.8252 0.0000 8,393.317 9 2024 3.5896 8.5207 11.2954 0.0388 1.9508 0.0370 1.9878 0.5299 0.0360 0.5658 0.0000 3,550.225 9 3,550.225 9 0.2695 0.0000 3,556.963 2 2025 1.4013 2.8191 3.7098 0.0128 0.6605 0.0120 0.6725 0.1793 0.0117 0.1910 0.0000 1,171.095 7 1,171.095 7 0.0881 0.0000 1,173.297 2 Maximum 6.8840 37.0571 52.1091 0.1331 10.2478 0.2512 10.4535 4.6031 0.2409 4.8025 0.0000 12,064.96 89 12,064.96 89 1.8403 0.0000 12,108.04 65 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 29.98 35.81 -9.18 0.00 2.51 89.96 18.09 1.54 89.54 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 4-1-2020 6-30-2020 11.0765 3.6980 2 7-1-2020 9-30-2020 11.1983 3.7386 3 10-1-2020 12-31-2020 12.6967 4.5498 4 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 14.2901 6.5730 5 4-1-2021 6-30-2021 16.0418 8.1883 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 9 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 6 7-1-2021 9-30-2021 18.5274 10.7480 7 10-1-2021 12-31-2021 18.0520 11.9844 8 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 15.7778 11.3861 9 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 15.8497 11.4091 10 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 16.0238 11.5345 11 10-1-2022 12-31-2022 11.6604 9.7416 12 1-1-2023 3-31-2023 10.0575 8.6290 13 4-1-2023 6-30-2023 9.1236 7.7649 14 7-1-2023 9-30-2023 7.6853 6.5642 15 10-1-2023 12-31-2023 5.3668 4.7075 16 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 4.8375 4.3472 17 4-1-2024 6-30-2024 2.8348 2.5732 18 7-1-2024 9-30-2024 2.8440 2.5821 19 10-1-2024 12-31-2024 2.8704 2.6085 20 1-1-2025 3-31-2025 2.7105 2.5280 21 4-1-2025 6-30-2025 1.7909 1.6692 Highest 18.5274 11.9844 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 10 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 10.6853 0.1082 8.2046 6.6100e- 003 0.4777 0.4777 0.4777 0.4777 45.6748 23.2849 68.9598 0.0879 2.8000e- 003 71.9927 Energy 0.1810 1.6117 1.1329 9.8700e- 003 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.0000 5,208.848 0 5,208.848 0 0.1889 0.0648 5,232.884 3 Mobile 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 203.2467 0.0000 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 27.2967 177.2846 204.5813 2.8117 0.0679 295.0945 Total 14.8746 28.7660 48.6004 0.1855 14.0959 0.7349 14.8308 3.7874 0.7263 4.5136 276.2183 21,071.22 47 21,347.44 30 15.7447 0.1355 21,781.43 12 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 11 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 7.9457 0.0888 5.0863 4.6000e- 004 0.0306 0.0306 0.0306 0.0306 0.0000 43.5588 43.5588 8.7200e- 003 6.5000e- 004 43.9695 Energy 0.1810 1.6117 1.1329 9.8700e- 003 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.1251 0.0000 5,208.848 0 5,208.848 0 0.1889 0.0648 5,232.884 3 Mobile 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 203.2467 0.0000 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 27.2967 177.2846 204.5813 2.8117 0.0679 295.0945 Total 12.1350 28.7466 45.4821 0.1794 14.0959 0.2878 14.3837 3.7874 0.2791 4.0665 230.5435 21,091.49 86 21,322.04 21 15.6655 0.1333 21,753.40 80 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 18.42 0.07 6.42 3.31 0.00 60.84 3.01 0.00 61.57 9.91 16.54 -0.10 0.12 0.50 1.59 0.13 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 12 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 4/1/2020 6/1/2021 5 305 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2020 10/1/2021 5 393 3 Grading Grading 4/1/2020 9/30/2022 5 653 4 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Trenching 10/1/2020 9/1/2023 5 762 5 Building Construction (Commercial) Building Construction 1/1/2021 9/1/2023 5 696 6 Paving (Commercial)Paving 5/1/2021 6/1/2023 5 544 7 Building Construction (Apartments) Building Construction 6/1/2021 4/1/2024 5 740 8 Building Construction (For Sale)Building Construction 6/1/2021 5/30/2025 5 1044 9 Paving (For Sale)Paving 10/1/2021 4/1/2023 5 391 10 Architectural Coating (Commercial) Architectural Coating 10/1/2021 12/1/2023 5 566 11 Architectural Coating (Apartments) Architectural Coating 10/1/2021 12/1/2023 5 566 12 Architectual Coating (For Sale)Architectural Coating 12/3/2023 5/30/2025 5 390 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating (Commercial)Air Compressors 3 6.00 78 0.48 Demolition Excavators 6 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 8.00 81 0.73 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Residential Indoor: 2,353,901; Residential Outdoor: 784,634; Non-Residential Indoor: 971,985; Non-Residential Outdoor: 323,995; Striped Parking Area: 63,120 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 387.5 Acres of Paving: 23.67 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 13 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Excavators 4 8.00 158 0.38 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site)Trenchers 6 8.00 78 0.50 Architectural Coating (Apartments)Air Compressors 3 6.00 78 0.48 Architectual Coating (For Sale)Air Compressors 3 6.00 78 0.48 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Graders 4 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (Commercial)Cranes 2 7.00 231 0.29 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 8 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 6 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 6 8.00 367 0.48 Building Construction (Apartments)Cranes 2 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction (For Sale)Cranes 2 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction (Commercial)Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction (Apartments)Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction (For Sale)Forklifts 6 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction (Commercial)Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction (Apartments)Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction (For Sale)Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74 Paving (Commercial)Pavers 4 8.00 130 0.42 Paving (For Sale)Pavers 4 8.00 130 0.42 Paving (Commercial)Paving Equipment 4 8.00 132 0.36 Paving (For Sale)Paving Equipment 4 8.00 132 0.36 Paving (Commercial)Rollers 4 8.00 80 0.38 Paving (For Sale)Rollers 4 8.00 80 0.38 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 14 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Building Construction (Commercial)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (Apartments)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (For Sale)Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (Commercial)Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Building Construction (Apartments)Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Building Construction (For Sale)Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 12 30.00 0.00 989.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 14 35.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 20 50.00 0.00 11,700.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) 14 35.00 0.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating (Commercial) 3 223.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating (Apartments) 3 223.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectual Coating (For Sale) 3 223.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction (Commercial) 17 1,114.00 351.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction (Apartments) 17 1,114.00 351.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction (For Sale) 17 1,114.00 351.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving (Commercial)12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving (For Sale)12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 15 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0691 0.0000 0.0691 0.0105 0.0000 0.0105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.6525 6.5406 4.2854 7.6500e- 003 0.3268 0.3268 0.3038 0.3038 0.0000 669.7726 669.7726 0.1891 0.0000 674.4994 Total 0.6525 6.5406 4.2854 7.6500e- 003 0.0691 0.3268 0.3959 0.0105 0.3038 0.3142 0.0000 669.7726 669.7726 0.1891 0.0000 674.4994 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Water Unpaved Roads Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 16 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.7100e- 003 0.0931 0.0164 2.5000e- 004 7.6200e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.9200e- 003 2.0300e- 003 2.8000e- 004 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 24.4540 24.4540 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 24.4848 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0102 7.5400e- 003 0.0773 2.3000e- 004 0.0234 1.6000e- 004 0.0235 6.2200e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.3600e- 003 0.0000 20.7694 20.7694 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 20.7828 Total 0.0129 0.1007 0.0937 4.8000e- 004 0.0310 4.6000e- 004 0.0315 8.2500e- 003 4.3000e- 004 8.6800e- 003 0.0000 45.2234 45.2234 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 45.2676 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0691 0.0000 0.0691 0.0105 0.0000 0.0105 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1151 2.6708 4.8608 7.6500e- 003 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0121 0.0000 669.7718 669.7718 0.1891 0.0000 674.4986 Total 0.1151 2.6708 4.8608 7.6500e- 003 0.0691 0.0121 0.0813 0.0105 0.0121 0.0226 0.0000 669.7718 669.7718 0.1891 0.0000 674.4986 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 17 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.7100e- 003 0.0931 0.0164 2.5000e- 004 7.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 004 7.5500e- 003 1.9400e- 003 2.8000e- 004 2.2200e- 003 0.0000 24.4540 24.4540 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 24.4848 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0102 7.5400e- 003 0.0773 2.3000e- 004 0.0222 1.6000e- 004 0.0223 5.9200e- 003 1.5000e- 004 6.0700e- 003 0.0000 20.7694 20.7694 5.4000e- 004 0.0000 20.7828 Total 0.0129 0.1007 0.0937 4.8000e- 004 0.0294 4.6000e- 004 0.0299 7.8600e- 003 4.3000e- 004 8.2900e- 003 0.0000 45.2234 45.2234 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 45.2676 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0379 0.0000 0.0379 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3418 3.3956 2.3290 4.1900e- 003 0.1676 0.1676 0.1556 0.1556 0.0000 367.2085 367.2085 0.1034 0.0000 369.7923 Total 0.3418 3.3956 2.3290 4.1900e- 003 0.0379 0.1676 0.2055 5.7400e- 003 0.1556 0.1614 0.0000 367.2085 367.2085 0.1034 0.0000 369.7923 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 18 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.4000e- 003 0.0472 8.7600e- 003 1.4000e- 004 7.0100e- 003 1.4000e- 004 7.1500e- 003 1.8100e- 003 1.4000e- 004 1.9500e- 003 0.0000 13.2384 13.2384 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 13.2548 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.1700e- 003 3.6900e- 003 0.0386 1.2000e- 004 0.0128 9.0000e- 005 0.0129 3.4100e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.4900e- 003 0.0000 10.9913 10.9913 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.9978 Total 6.5700e- 003 0.0509 0.0474 2.6000e- 004 0.0198 2.3000e- 004 0.0200 5.2200e- 003 2.2000e- 004 5.4400e- 003 0.0000 24.2297 24.2297 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 24.2526 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0379 0.0000 0.0379 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 5.7400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0631 1.4642 2.6648 4.1900e- 003 6.6600e- 003 6.6600e- 003 6.6600e- 003 6.6600e- 003 0.0000 367.2080 367.2080 0.1034 0.0000 369.7919 Total 0.0631 1.4642 2.6648 4.1900e- 003 0.0379 6.6600e- 003 0.0446 5.7400e- 003 6.6600e- 003 0.0124 0.0000 367.2080 367.2080 0.1034 0.0000 369.7919 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 19 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.4000e- 003 0.0472 8.7600e- 003 1.4000e- 004 6.6300e- 003 1.4000e- 004 6.7800e- 003 1.7200e- 003 1.4000e- 004 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 13.2384 13.2384 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 13.2548 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.1700e- 003 3.6900e- 003 0.0386 1.2000e- 004 0.0121 9.0000e- 005 0.0122 3.2400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.3200e- 003 0.0000 10.9913 10.9913 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.9978 Total 6.5700e- 003 0.0509 0.0474 2.6000e- 004 0.0188 2.3000e- 004 0.0190 4.9600e- 003 2.2000e- 004 5.1700e- 003 0.0000 24.2297 24.2297 9.2000e- 004 0.0000 24.2526 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.5591 0.0000 3.5591 1.9563 0.0000 1.9563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8031 8.3562 4.2382 7.4900e- 003 0.4329 0.4329 0.3983 0.3983 0.0000 658.5844 658.5844 0.2130 0.0000 663.9094 Total 0.8031 8.3562 4.2382 7.4900e- 003 3.5591 0.4329 3.9919 1.9563 0.3983 2.3546 0.0000 658.5844 658.5844 0.2130 0.0000 663.9094 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 20 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0273 1.9000e- 004 0.0275 7.2500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.4300e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 Total 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0273 1.9000e- 004 0.0275 7.2500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.4300e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.5591 0.0000 3.5591 1.9563 0.0000 1.9563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1373 2.3959 4.5231 7.4900e- 003 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 658.5836 658.5836 0.2130 0.0000 663.9086 Total 0.1373 2.3959 4.5231 7.4900e- 003 3.5591 0.0122 3.5713 1.9563 0.0122 1.9686 0.0000 658.5836 658.5836 0.2130 0.0000 663.9086 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 21 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0259 1.9000e- 004 0.0260 6.9000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0800e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 Total 0.0119 8.8000e- 003 0.0902 2.7000e- 004 0.0259 1.9000e- 004 0.0260 6.9000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0800e- 003 0.0000 24.2309 24.2309 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 24.2466 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.5410 0.0000 3.5410 1.9464 0.0000 1.9464 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.7621 7.9374 4.1462 7.4500e- 003 0.4007 0.4007 0.3687 0.3687 0.0000 655.3401 655.3401 0.2120 0.0000 660.6388 Total 0.7621 7.9374 4.1462 7.4500e- 003 3.5410 0.4007 3.9417 1.9464 0.3687 2.3151 0.0000 655.3401 655.3401 0.2120 0.0000 660.6388 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 22 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0271 1.8000e- 004 0.0273 7.2100e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 Total 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0271 1.8000e- 004 0.0273 7.2100e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.3800e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.5410 0.0000 3.5410 1.9464 0.0000 1.9464 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1366 2.3838 4.5002 7.4500e- 003 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0122 0.0000 655.3393 655.3393 0.2120 0.0000 660.6380 Total 0.1366 2.3838 4.5002 7.4500e- 003 3.5410 0.0122 3.5532 1.9464 0.0122 1.9586 0.0000 655.3393 655.3393 0.2120 0.0000 660.6380 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 23 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0257 1.8000e- 004 0.0259 6.8700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 Total 0.0110 7.8100e- 003 0.0818 2.6000e- 004 0.0257 1.8000e- 004 0.0259 6.8700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 23.2716 23.2716 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 23.2855 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.5835 0.0000 2.5835 1.3272 0.0000 1.3272 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.3304 15.2074 8.2927 0.0172 0.6447 0.6447 0.5931 0.5931 0.0000 1,508.862 5 1,508.862 5 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.062 4 Total 1.3304 15.2074 8.2927 0.0172 2.5835 0.6447 3.2282 1.3272 0.5931 1.9204 0.0000 1,508.862 5 1,508.862 5 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.062 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 24 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0150 0.5147 0.0905 1.4000e- 003 0.0816 1.6400e- 003 0.0832 0.0209 1.5700e- 003 0.0225 0.0000 135.1223 135.1223 6.8000e- 003 0.0000 135.2924 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0170 0.0126 0.1289 3.8000e- 004 0.0389 2.7000e- 004 0.0392 0.0104 2.5000e- 004 0.0106 0.0000 34.6156 34.6156 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 34.6380 Total 0.0320 0.5272 0.2194 1.7800e- 003 0.1205 1.9100e- 003 0.1224 0.0313 1.8200e- 003 0.0331 0.0000 169.7379 169.7379 7.6900e- 003 0.0000 169.9304 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.5835 0.0000 2.5835 1.3272 0.0000 1.3272 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2844 4.9239 9.6390 0.0172 0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 0.0281 0.0000 1,508.860 7 1,508.860 7 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.060 6 Total 0.2844 4.9239 9.6390 0.0172 2.5835 0.0281 2.6116 1.3272 0.0281 1.3553 0.0000 1,508.860 7 1,508.860 7 0.4880 0.0000 1,521.060 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 25 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0150 0.5147 0.0905 1.4000e- 003 0.0771 1.6400e- 003 0.0788 0.0198 1.5700e- 003 0.0214 0.0000 135.1223 135.1223 6.8000e- 003 0.0000 135.2924 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0170 0.0126 0.1289 3.8000e- 004 0.0369 2.7000e- 004 0.0372 9.8600e- 003 2.5000e- 004 0.0101 0.0000 34.6156 34.6156 8.9000e- 004 0.0000 34.6380 Total 0.0320 0.5272 0.2194 1.7800e- 003 0.1141 1.9100e- 003 0.1160 0.0297 1.8200e- 003 0.0315 0.0000 169.7379 169.7379 7.6900e- 003 0.0000 169.9304 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.3543 0.0000 3.3543 1.7509 0.0000 1.7509 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6680 18.7516 10.5487 0.0228 0.7876 0.7876 0.7245 0.7245 0.0000 1,999.282 4 1,999.282 4 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.447 6 Total 1.6680 18.7516 10.5487 0.0228 3.3543 0.7876 4.1418 1.7509 0.7245 2.4755 0.0000 1,999.282 4 1,999.282 4 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.447 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 26 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0187 0.6305 0.1170 1.8300e- 003 0.0840 1.9300e- 003 0.0860 0.0218 1.8400e- 003 0.0237 0.0000 176.7782 176.7782 8.7600e- 003 0.0000 176.9973 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0208 0.0149 0.1555 4.9000e- 004 0.0516 3.5000e- 004 0.0519 0.0137 3.2000e- 004 0.0140 0.0000 44.2704 44.2704 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 44.2968 Total 0.0396 0.6454 0.2725 2.3200e- 003 0.1356 2.2800e- 003 0.1379 0.0355 2.1600e- 003 0.0377 0.0000 221.0485 221.0485 9.8200e- 003 0.0000 221.2941 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.3543 0.0000 3.3543 1.7509 0.0000 1.7509 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.3768 6.5235 12.7705 0.0228 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0372 0.0000 1,999.280 0 1,999.280 0 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.445 2 Total 0.3768 6.5235 12.7705 0.0228 3.3543 0.0372 3.3915 1.7509 0.0372 1.7882 0.0000 1,999.280 0 1,999.280 0 0.6466 0.0000 2,015.445 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 27 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0187 0.6305 0.1170 1.8300e- 003 0.0796 1.9300e- 003 0.0815 0.0207 1.8400e- 003 0.0226 0.0000 176.7782 176.7782 8.7600e- 003 0.0000 176.9973 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0208 0.0149 0.1555 4.9000e- 004 0.0489 3.5000e- 004 0.0493 0.0131 3.2000e- 004 0.0134 0.0000 44.2704 44.2704 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 44.2968 Total 0.0396 0.6454 0.2725 2.3200e- 003 0.1285 2.2800e- 003 0.1308 0.0338 2.1600e- 003 0.0360 0.0000 221.0485 221.0485 9.8200e- 003 0.0000 221.2941 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.5594 0.0000 2.5594 1.3140 0.0000 1.3140 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0713 11.7119 7.3059 0.0170 0.4841 0.4841 0.4454 0.4454 0.0000 1,494.814 3 1,494.814 3 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.900 6 Total 1.0713 11.7119 7.3059 0.0170 2.5594 0.4841 3.0435 1.3140 0.4454 1.7594 0.0000 1,494.814 3 1,494.814 3 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.900 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 28 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0132 0.4339 0.0852 1.3500e- 003 0.0815 1.2300e- 003 0.0827 0.0209 1.1800e- 003 0.0221 0.0000 130.3324 130.3324 6.3500e- 003 0.0000 130.4912 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0145 9.9300e- 003 0.1064 3.5000e- 004 0.0386 2.5000e- 004 0.0388 0.0103 2.3000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 31.8702 31.8702 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 31.8878 Total 0.0277 0.4438 0.1916 1.7000e- 003 0.1201 1.4800e- 003 0.1215 0.0311 1.4100e- 003 0.0326 0.0000 162.2025 162.2025 7.0600e- 003 0.0000 162.3790 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.5594 0.0000 2.5594 1.3140 0.0000 1.3140 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2815 4.8739 9.5411 0.0170 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.0000 1,494.812 5 1,494.812 5 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.898 8 Total 0.2815 4.8739 9.5411 0.0170 2.5594 0.0278 2.5872 1.3140 0.0278 1.3418 0.0000 1,494.812 5 1,494.812 5 0.4835 0.0000 1,506.898 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 29 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0132 0.4339 0.0852 1.3500e- 003 0.0771 1.2300e- 003 0.0783 0.0198 1.1800e- 003 0.0210 0.0000 130.3324 130.3324 6.3500e- 003 0.0000 130.4912 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0145 9.9300e- 003 0.1064 3.5000e- 004 0.0366 2.5000e- 004 0.0368 9.7600e- 003 2.3000e- 004 0.0100 0.0000 31.8702 31.8702 7.1000e- 004 0.0000 31.8878 Total 0.0277 0.4438 0.1916 1.7000e- 003 0.1136 1.4800e- 003 0.1151 0.0296 1.4100e- 003 0.0310 0.0000 162.2025 162.2025 7.0600e- 003 0.0000 162.3790 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1436 1.3523 1.2578 1.7600e- 003 0.0896 0.0896 0.0824 0.0824 0.0000 155.0547 155.0547 0.0502 0.0000 156.3084 Total 0.1436 1.3523 1.2578 1.7600e- 003 0.0896 0.0896 0.0824 0.0824 0.0000 155.0547 155.0547 0.0502 0.0000 156.3084 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 30 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 Total 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0326 0.7730 1.3341 1.7600e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 0.0000 155.0545 155.0545 0.0502 0.0000 156.3082 Total 0.0326 0.7730 1.3341 1.7600e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 2.8800e- 003 0.0000 155.0545 155.0545 0.0502 0.0000 156.3082 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 31 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 Total 1.1400e- 003 4.1000e- 004 6.1400e- 003 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2376 0.2376 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2383 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.5186 4.8790 4.9424 6.9800e- 003 0.3136 0.3136 0.2885 0.2885 0.0000 613.3467 613.3467 0.1984 0.0000 618.3059 Total 0.5186 4.8790 4.9424 6.9800e- 003 0.3136 0.3136 0.2885 0.2885 0.0000 613.3467 613.3467 0.1984 0.0000 618.3059 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 32 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 Total 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1291 3.0569 5.2757 6.9800e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 613.3460 613.3460 0.1984 0.0000 618.3052 Total 0.1291 3.0569 5.2757 6.9800e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 613.3460 613.3460 0.1984 0.0000 618.3052 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 33 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 Total 4.1200e- 003 1.4300e- 003 0.0217 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9108 0.9108 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.9132 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.4763 4.4458 4.8975 6.9500e- 003 0.2793 0.2793 0.2570 0.2570 0.0000 611.0913 611.0913 0.1976 0.0000 616.0323 Total 0.4763 4.4458 4.8975 6.9500e- 003 0.2793 0.2793 0.2570 0.2570 0.0000 611.0913 611.0913 0.1976 0.0000 616.0323 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 34 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 Total 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1286 3.0452 5.2555 6.9500e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 611.0906 611.0906 0.1976 0.0000 616.0316 Total 0.1286 3.0452 5.2555 6.9500e- 003 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 611.0906 611.0906 0.1976 0.0000 616.0316 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 35 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 Total 3.7500e- 003 1.2500e- 003 0.0194 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8774 0.8774 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8796 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3021 2.7859 3.2914 4.6800e- 003 0.1714 0.1714 0.1577 0.1577 0.0000 411.5669 411.5669 0.1331 0.0000 414.8946 Total 0.3021 2.7859 3.2914 4.6800e- 003 0.1714 0.1714 0.1577 0.1577 0.0000 411.5669 411.5669 0.1331 0.0000 414.8946 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 36 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 Total 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0865 2.0497 3.5374 4.6800e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 0.0000 411.5664 411.5664 0.1331 0.0000 414.8941 Total 0.0865 2.0497 3.5374 4.6800e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 7.6500e- 003 0.0000 411.5664 411.5664 0.1331 0.0000 414.8941 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 37 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.5 Infratructure (On- and Off-Site) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 Total 2.3100e- 003 7.4000e- 004 0.0118 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5699 0.5699 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5711 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.4566 4.3529 4.1018 6.6900e- 003 0.2405 0.2405 0.2256 0.2256 0.0000 580.0105 580.0105 0.1427 0.0000 583.5770 Total 0.4566 4.3529 4.1018 6.6900e- 003 0.2405 0.2405 0.2256 0.2256 0.0000 580.0105 580.0105 0.1427 0.0000 583.5770 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 38 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1418 4.8995 1.0378 0.0125 0.3008 0.0102 0.3111 0.0870 9.7700e- 003 0.0968 0.0000 1,199.969 5 1,199.969 5 0.0659 0.0000 1,201.617 2 Worker 0.4642 0.3309 3.4650 0.0109 1.1495 7.7200e- 003 1.1572 0.3058 7.1200e- 003 0.3129 0.0000 986.3433 986.3433 0.0236 0.0000 986.9325 Total 0.6060 5.2304 4.5027 0.0234 1.4503 0.0179 1.4682 0.3928 0.0169 0.4097 0.0000 2,186.312 8 2,186.312 8 0.0895 0.0000 2,188.549 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1673 2.6114 4.4987 6.6900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 580.0098 580.0098 0.1427 0.0000 583.5763 Total 0.1673 2.6114 4.4987 6.6900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 580.0098 580.0098 0.1427 0.0000 583.5763 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 39 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1418 4.8995 1.0378 0.0125 0.2881 0.0102 0.2984 0.0839 9.7700e- 003 0.0937 0.0000 1,199.969 5 1,199.969 5 0.0659 0.0000 1,201.617 2 Worker 0.4642 0.3309 3.4650 0.0109 1.0899 7.7200e- 003 1.0976 0.2912 7.1200e- 003 0.2983 0.0000 986.3433 986.3433 0.0236 0.0000 986.9325 Total 0.6060 5.2304 4.5027 0.0234 1.3780 0.0179 1.3960 0.3751 0.0169 0.3920 0.0000 2,186.312 8 2,186.312 8 0.0895 0.0000 2,188.549 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Total 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 40 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2997 8.8000e- 003 0.3085 0.0867 8.4200e- 003 0.0951 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.1451 7.5000e- 003 1.1525 0.3046 6.9100e- 003 0.3115 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.4447 0.0163 1.4610 0.3913 0.0153 0.4066 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Total 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 41 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2871 8.8000e- 003 0.2959 0.0836 8.4200e- 003 0.0920 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.0857 7.5000e- 003 1.0932 0.2900 6.9100e- 003 0.2969 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.3727 0.0163 1.3890 0.3736 0.0153 0.3890 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2530 2.3931 2.6959 4.4900e- 003 0.1176 0.1176 0.1104 0.1104 0.0000 389.1890 389.1890 0.0947 0.0000 391.5566 Total 0.2530 2.3931 2.6959 4.4900e- 003 0.1176 0.1176 0.1104 0.1104 0.0000 389.1890 389.1890 0.0947 0.0000 391.5566 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 42 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0651 2.4154 0.5697 8.0700e- 003 0.2017 2.5600e- 003 0.2043 0.0584 2.4500e- 003 0.0608 0.0000 774.0438 774.0438 0.0337 0.0000 774.8870 Worker 0.2691 0.1781 1.9475 6.7700e- 003 0.7707 4.9300e- 003 0.7756 0.2050 4.5400e- 003 0.2096 0.0000 612.8680 612.8680 0.0127 0.0000 613.1844 Total 0.3342 2.5935 2.5172 0.0148 0.9724 7.4900e- 003 0.9799 0.2634 6.9900e- 003 0.2704 0.0000 1,386.911 9 1,386.911 9 0.0464 0.0000 1,388.071 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1080 1.7432 3.0128 4.4900e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 389.1885 389.1885 0.0947 0.0000 391.5561 Total 0.1080 1.7432 3.0128 4.4900e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 389.1885 389.1885 0.0947 0.0000 391.5561 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 43 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.6 Building Construction (Commercial) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0651 2.4154 0.5697 8.0700e- 003 0.1932 2.5600e- 003 0.1958 0.0563 2.4500e- 003 0.0587 0.0000 774.0438 774.0438 0.0337 0.0000 774.8870 Worker 0.2691 0.1781 1.9475 6.7700e- 003 0.7308 4.9300e- 003 0.7357 0.1952 4.5400e- 003 0.1998 0.0000 612.8680 612.8680 0.0127 0.0000 613.1844 Total 0.3342 2.5935 2.5172 0.0148 0.9240 7.4900e- 003 0.9315 0.2515 6.9900e- 003 0.2585 0.0000 1,386.911 9 1,386.911 9 0.0464 0.0000 1,388.071 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2197 2.2608 2.5643 3.9900e- 003 0.1186 0.1186 0.1091 0.1091 0.0000 350.4109 350.4109 0.1133 0.0000 353.2442 Paving 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2274 2.2608 2.5643 3.9900e- 003 0.1186 0.1186 0.1091 0.1091 0.0000 350.4109 350.4109 0.1133 0.0000 353.2442 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 44 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0208 1.4000e- 004 0.0209 5.5200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.6500e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 Total 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0208 1.4000e- 004 0.0209 5.5200e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.6500e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1081 1.8053 2.8309 3.9900e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0351 0.0351 0.0000 350.4105 350.4105 0.1133 0.0000 353.2437 Paving 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1158 1.8053 2.8309 3.9900e- 003 0.0377 0.0377 0.0351 0.0351 0.0000 350.4105 350.4105 0.1133 0.0000 353.2437 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 45 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0197 1.4000e- 004 0.0198 5.2600e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 Total 8.3800e- 003 5.9700e- 003 0.0626 2.0000e- 004 0.0197 1.4000e- 004 0.0198 5.2600e- 003 1.3000e- 004 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 17.8099 17.8099 4.3000e- 004 0.0000 17.8206 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2867 2.8925 3.7909 5.9300e- 003 0.1477 0.1477 0.1358 0.1358 0.0000 520.7165 520.7165 0.1684 0.0000 524.9268 Paving 0.0115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2982 2.8925 3.7909 5.9300e- 003 0.1477 0.1477 0.1358 0.1358 0.0000 520.7165 520.7165 0.1684 0.0000 524.9268 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 46 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0308 2.0000e- 004 0.0310 8.2000e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.3900e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 Total 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0308 2.0000e- 004 0.0310 8.2000e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.3900e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1534 2.5768 4.2083 5.9300e- 003 0.0503 0.0503 0.0468 0.0468 0.0000 520.7159 520.7159 0.1684 0.0000 524.9261 Paving 0.0115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1648 2.5768 4.2083 5.9300e- 003 0.0503 0.0503 0.0468 0.0468 0.0000 520.7159 520.7159 0.1684 0.0000 524.9261 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 47 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0292 2.0000e- 004 0.0294 7.8100e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 Total 0.0116 7.9500e- 003 0.0851 2.8000e- 004 0.0292 2.0000e- 004 0.0294 7.8100e- 003 1.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 003 0.0000 25.4961 25.4961 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 25.5103 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1126 1.1109 1.5897 2.4900e- 003 0.0556 0.0556 0.0512 0.0512 0.0000 218.2928 218.2928 0.0706 0.0000 220.0579 Paving 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1174 1.1109 1.5897 2.4900e- 003 0.0556 0.0556 0.0512 0.0512 0.0000 218.2928 218.2928 0.0706 0.0000 220.0579 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 48 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0129 8.0000e- 005 0.0130 3.4400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.5200e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 Total 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0129 8.0000e- 005 0.0130 3.4400e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.5200e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0627 1.0509 1.7666 2.4900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0183 0.0183 0.0000 218.2926 218.2926 0.0706 0.0000 220.0576 Paving 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0675 1.0509 1.7666 2.4900e- 003 0.0196 0.0196 0.0183 0.0183 0.0000 218.2926 218.2926 0.0706 0.0000 220.0576 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 49 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.7 Paving (Commercial) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0123 8.0000e- 005 0.0123 3.2700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.3500e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 Total 4.5100e- 003 2.9900e- 003 0.0327 1.1000e- 004 0.0123 8.0000e- 005 0.0123 3.2700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 3.3500e- 003 0.0000 10.2800 10.2800 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 10.2853 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Total 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 50 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0837 2.8909 0.6123 7.3900e- 003 0.1775 6.0300e- 003 0.1835 0.0514 5.7700e- 003 0.0571 0.0000 708.0280 708.0280 0.0389 0.0000 709.0002 Worker 0.2739 0.1952 2.0445 6.4400e- 003 0.6782 4.5600e- 003 0.6828 0.1804 4.2000e- 003 0.1846 0.0000 581.9804 581.9804 0.0139 0.0000 582.3280 Total 0.3576 3.0861 2.6568 0.0138 0.8557 0.0106 0.8663 0.2318 9.9700e- 003 0.2417 0.0000 1,290.008 3 1,290.008 3 0.0528 0.0000 1,291.328 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Total 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 51 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0837 2.8909 0.6123 7.3900e- 003 0.1700 6.0300e- 003 0.1760 0.0495 5.7700e- 003 0.0553 0.0000 708.0280 708.0280 0.0389 0.0000 709.0002 Worker 0.2739 0.1952 2.0445 6.4400e- 003 0.6431 4.5600e- 003 0.6476 0.1718 4.2000e- 003 0.1760 0.0000 581.9804 581.9804 0.0139 0.0000 582.3280 Total 0.3576 3.0861 2.6568 0.0138 0.8131 0.0106 0.8237 0.2213 9.9700e- 003 0.2313 0.0000 1,290.008 3 1,290.008 3 0.0528 0.0000 1,291.328 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Total 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 52 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2997 8.8000e- 003 0.3085 0.0867 8.4200e- 003 0.0951 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.1451 7.5000e- 003 1.1525 0.3046 6.9100e- 003 0.3115 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.4447 0.0163 1.4610 0.3913 0.0153 0.4066 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Total 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 53 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2871 8.8000e- 003 0.2959 0.0836 8.4200e- 003 0.0920 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.0857 7.5000e- 003 1.0932 0.2900 6.9100e- 003 0.2969 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.3727 0.0163 1.3890 0.3736 0.0153 0.3890 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Total 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 54 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2997 3.8000e- 003 0.3035 0.0867 3.6300e- 003 0.0903 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.1451 7.3200e- 003 1.1524 0.3046 6.7500e- 003 0.3114 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.4448 0.0111 1.4559 0.3913 0.0104 0.4017 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Total 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 55 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2871 3.8000e- 003 0.2909 0.0836 3.6300e- 003 0.0872 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.0857 7.3200e- 003 1.0930 0.2900 6.7500e- 003 0.2968 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.3727 0.0111 1.3839 0.3736 0.0104 0.3840 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0893 0.8417 1.0121 1.6900e- 003 0.0389 0.0389 0.0365 0.0365 0.0000 146.8091 146.8091 0.0356 0.0000 147.6979 Total 0.0893 0.8417 1.0121 1.6900e- 003 0.0389 0.0389 0.0365 0.0365 0.0000 146.8091 146.8091 0.0356 0.0000 147.6979 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 56 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0238 0.9044 0.2058 3.0200e- 003 0.0761 9.5000e- 004 0.0770 0.0220 9.1000e- 004 0.0229 0.0000 289.9033 289.9033 0.0126 0.0000 290.2174 Worker 0.0950 0.0606 0.6780 2.4500e- 003 0.2907 1.8200e- 003 0.2925 0.0773 1.6800e- 003 0.0790 0.0000 221.9775 221.9775 4.2900e- 003 0.0000 222.0847 Total 0.1188 0.9649 0.8838 5.4700e- 003 0.3668 2.7700e- 003 0.3695 0.0993 2.5900e- 003 0.1019 0.0000 511.8808 511.8808 0.0169 0.0000 512.3021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0401 0.6561 1.1358 1.6900e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 146.8090 146.8090 0.0356 0.0000 147.6977 Total 0.0401 0.6561 1.1358 1.6900e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 4.0700e- 003 0.0000 146.8090 146.8090 0.0356 0.0000 147.6977 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 57 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.8 Building Construction (Apartments) - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0238 0.9044 0.2058 3.0200e- 003 0.0729 9.5000e- 004 0.0738 0.0212 9.1000e- 004 0.0221 0.0000 289.9033 289.9033 0.0126 0.0000 290.2174 Worker 0.0950 0.0606 0.6780 2.4500e- 003 0.2756 1.8200e- 003 0.2774 0.0736 1.6800e- 003 0.0753 0.0000 221.9775 221.9775 4.2900e- 003 0.0000 222.0847 Total 0.1188 0.9649 0.8838 5.4700e- 003 0.3485 2.7700e- 003 0.3512 0.0948 2.5900e- 003 0.0974 0.0000 511.8808 511.8808 0.0169 0.0000 512.3021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Total 0.2694 2.5684 2.4202 3.9500e- 003 0.1419 0.1419 0.1331 0.1331 0.0000 342.2284 342.2284 0.0842 0.0000 344.3328 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 58 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0837 2.8909 0.6123 7.3900e- 003 0.1775 6.0300e- 003 0.1835 0.0514 5.7700e- 003 0.0571 0.0000 708.0280 708.0280 0.0389 0.0000 709.0002 Worker 0.2739 0.1952 2.0445 6.4400e- 003 0.6782 4.5600e- 003 0.6828 0.1804 4.2000e- 003 0.1846 0.0000 581.9804 581.9804 0.0139 0.0000 582.3280 Total 0.3576 3.0861 2.6568 0.0138 0.8557 0.0106 0.8663 0.2318 9.9700e- 003 0.2417 0.0000 1,290.008 3 1,290.008 3 0.0528 0.0000 1,291.328 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Total 0.0987 1.5408 2.6544 3.9500e- 003 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 342.2280 342.2280 0.0842 0.0000 344.3324 Mitigated Construction On-Site Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 59 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Total 0.4077 3.8699 4.0340 6.6700e- 003 0.2020 0.2020 0.1896 0.1896 0.0000 578.0170 578.0170 0.1414 0.0000 581.5522 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2997 8.8000e- 003 0.3085 0.0867 8.4200e- 003 0.0951 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.1451 7.5000e- 003 1.1525 0.3046 6.9100e- 003 0.3115 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.4447 0.0163 1.4610 0.3913 0.0153 0.4066 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 60 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Total 0.1633 2.5955 4.4785 6.6700e- 003 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0182 0.0000 578.0163 578.0163 0.1414 0.0000 581.5515 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1320 4.6357 0.9684 0.0124 0.2871 8.8000e- 003 0.2959 0.0836 8.4200e- 003 0.0920 0.0000 1,183.683 2 1,183.683 2 0.0628 0.0000 1,185.251 9 Worker 0.4294 0.2950 3.1599 0.0105 1.0857 7.5000e- 003 1.0932 0.2900 6.9100e- 003 0.2969 0.0000 946.7559 946.7559 0.0210 0.0000 947.2814 Total 0.5614 4.9308 4.1283 0.0228 1.3727 0.0163 1.3890 0.3736 0.0153 0.3890 0.0000 2,130.439 1 2,130.439 1 0.0838 0.0000 2,132.533 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 61 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Total 0.3758 3.5554 4.0053 6.6700e- 003 0.1748 0.1748 0.1640 0.1640 0.0000 578.2237 578.2237 0.1407 0.0000 581.7412 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2997 3.8000e- 003 0.3035 0.0867 3.6300e- 003 0.0903 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.1451 7.3200e- 003 1.1524 0.3046 6.7500e- 003 0.3114 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.4448 0.0111 1.4559 0.3913 0.0104 0.4017 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 62 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Total 0.1604 2.5899 4.4761 6.6700e- 003 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 578.2230 578.2230 0.1407 0.0000 581.7405 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0968 3.5886 0.8464 0.0120 0.2871 3.8000e- 003 0.2909 0.0836 3.6300e- 003 0.0872 0.0000 1,150.008 0 1,150.008 0 0.0501 0.0000 1,151.260 7 Worker 0.3998 0.2647 2.8934 0.0101 1.0857 7.3200e- 003 1.0930 0.2900 6.7500e- 003 0.2968 0.0000 910.5468 910.5468 0.0188 0.0000 911.0168 Total 0.4965 3.8532 3.7398 0.0221 1.3727 0.0111 1.3839 0.3736 0.0104 0.3840 0.0000 2,060.554 8 2,060.554 8 0.0689 0.0000 2,062.277 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 63 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3547 3.3414 4.0178 6.7300e- 003 0.1545 0.1545 0.1449 0.1449 0.0000 582.7878 582.7878 0.1411 0.0000 586.3159 Total 0.3547 3.3414 4.0178 6.7300e- 003 0.1545 0.1545 0.1449 0.1449 0.0000 582.7878 582.7878 0.1411 0.0000 586.3159 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0946 3.5900 0.8168 0.0120 0.3020 3.7800e- 003 0.3058 0.0874 3.6200e- 003 0.0910 0.0000 1,150.828 4 1,150.828 4 0.0499 0.0000 1,152.075 1 Worker 0.3769 0.2404 2.6914 9.7400e- 003 1.1539 7.2300e- 003 1.1611 0.3070 6.6500e- 003 0.3136 0.0000 881.1832 881.1832 0.0170 0.0000 881.6090 Total 0.4716 3.8303 3.5082 0.0217 1.4559 0.0110 1.4669 0.3943 0.0103 0.4046 0.0000 2,032.011 6 2,032.011 6 0.0669 0.0000 2,033.684 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 64 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1592 2.6047 4.5087 6.7300e- 003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 582.7871 582.7871 0.1411 0.0000 586.3152 Total 0.1592 2.6047 4.5087 6.7300e- 003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 582.7871 582.7871 0.1411 0.0000 586.3152 Mitigated Construction On-Site Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1358 1.2743 1.6480 2.7700e- 003 0.0548 0.0548 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 240.3091 240.3091 0.0579 0.0000 241.7569 Total 0.1358 1.2743 1.6480 2.7700e- 003 0.0548 0.0548 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 240.3091 240.3091 0.0579 0.0000 241.7569 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 65 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 3.9 Building Construction (For Sale) - 2025 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0380 1.4679 0.3247 4.9100e- 003 0.1245 1.5400e- 003 0.1260 0.0360 1.4700e- 003 0.0375 0.0000 471.2741 471.2741 0.0203 0.0000 471.7807 Worker 0.1462 0.0899 1.0252 3.8500e- 003 0.4756 2.9300e- 003 0.4786 0.1265 2.7000e- 003 0.1292 0.0000 348.4064 348.4064 6.3500e- 003 0.0000 348.5652 Total 0.1842 1.5578 1.3499 8.7600e- 003 0.6001 4.4700e- 003 0.6046 0.1625 4.1700e- 003 0.1667 0.0000 819.6804 819.6804 0.0266 0.0000 820.3459 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0648 1.0716 1.8579 2.7700e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 0.0000 240.3088 240.3088 0.0579 0.0000 241.7566 Total 0.0648 1.0716 1.8579 2.7700e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 6.3000e- 003 0.0000 240.3088 240.3088 0.0579 0.0000 241.7566 Mitigated Construction On-Site Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 66 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 67 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 68 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subConstructionDetail', located at: subConstructionDetail. Please check the log files for more information. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 69 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 Unmitigated 4.0083 27.0461 39.2629 0.1691 14.0959 0.1322 14.2280 3.7874 0.1235 3.9109 0.0000 15,661.80 71 15,661.80 71 0.6447 0.0000 15,677.92 46 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 2,229.00 1,917.00 1758.00 4,889,769 4,889,769 Condo/Townhouse 1,472.00 1,134.00 968.00 3,121,929 3,121,929 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hotel 2,282.40 1,965.60 1428.00 4,018,516 4,018,516 Movie Theater (No Matinee)1,990.53 2,531.64 2088.45 3,920,061 3,920,061 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quality Restaurant 2,293.73 2,406.18 1840.08 2,662,925 2,662,925 Single Family Housing 1,785.60 1,783.80 1551.60 4,046,234 4,046,234 Strip Mall 9,143.95 9,038.60 4392.45 13,013,455 13,013,455 Strip Mall 1,424.76 1,408.34 684.41 2,027,678 2,027,678 Total 22,621.96 22,185.16 14,710.99 37,700,567 37,700,567 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 70 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Movie Theater (No Matinee)9.50 7.30 7.30 1.80 79.20 19.00 66 17 17 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Condo/Townhouse 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Hotel 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Movie Theater (No Matinee)0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Parking Lot 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Quality Restaurant 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Single Family Housing 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Strip Mall 0.564333 0.037157 0.190272 0.104758 0.013838 0.005122 0.025515 0.048164 0.002244 0.002158 0.005408 0.000360 0.000671 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 71 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior Use only Natural Gas Hearths Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 7.0 Water Detail Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subreport1', located at: subAreaDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subreport1', located at: subAreaDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subreport1', located at: subAreaDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subEnergyDetail', located at: subEnergyDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Exceed Title 24 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 72 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Apply Water Conservation Strategy Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Irrigation System Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subWaterDetail', located at: subWaterDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subWaterDetail', located at: subWaterDetail. Please check the log files for more information. Data retrieval failed for the subreport, 'subWaterDetail', located at: subWaterDetail. Please check the log files for more information. 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Unmitigated 203.2467 12.0115 0.0000 503.5352 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 73 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 138 28.0128 1.6555 0.0000 69.4004 Condo/Townhous e 92 18.6752 1.1037 0.0000 46.2669 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hotel 131.4 26.6730 1.5763 0.0000 66.0813 Movie Theater (No Matinee) 137.77 27.9661 1.6528 0.0000 69.2847 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Quality Restaurant 22.06 4.4780 0.2646 0.0000 11.0940 Single Family Housing 216.3 43.9070 2.5948 0.0000 108.7776 Strip Mall 263.73 53.5348 3.1638 0.0000 132.6302 Total 203.2467 12.0116 0.0000 503.5352 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 74 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid Rise 138 28.0128 1.6555 0.0000 69.4004 Condo/Townhous e 92 18.6752 1.1037 0.0000 46.2669 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hotel 131.4 26.6730 1.5763 0.0000 66.0813 Movie Theater (No Matinee) 137.77 27.9661 1.6528 0.0000 69.2847 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Quality Restaurant 22.06 4.4780 0.2646 0.0000 11.0940 Single Family Housing 216.3 43.9070 2.5948 0.0000 108.7776 Strip Mall 263.73 53.5348 3.1638 0.0000 132.6302 Total 203.2467 12.0116 0.0000 503.5352 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 75 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/30/2018 2:08 PMPage 76 of 76 At Dublin Project - Alameda County, Annual atdublinconstruction.log Start date and time 07/31/18 11:42:11 AERSCREEN 16216 At Dublin Construction At Dublin Construction ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- ---------------- Emission Rate: 0.140E-02 g/s 0.111E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 1217.00 meters 3992.78 feet Area Source Width: 265.00 meters 869.42 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 59583 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Page 1 atdublinconstruction.log Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION OFF AERSCREEN output file: Page 2 atdublinconstruction.log atdublinconstruction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 07/31/18 11:43:47 ******************************************** Page 3 atdublinconstruction.log Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 4 atdublinconstruction.log Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 Page 5 atdublinconstruction.log AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 Page 6 atdublinconstruction.log ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 7 atdublinconstruction.log *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 07/31/18 11:44:28 REFINE started 07/31/18 11:44:28 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 Page 8 atdublinconstruction.log ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 07/31/18 11:44:33 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 07/31/18 11:44:33 Page 9 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.24559E+00 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24872E+00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25185E+00 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25488E+00 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25773E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26050E+00 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26317E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26568E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26814E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27052E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27277E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27766E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27995E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28217E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28432E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28642E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28846E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29043E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29234E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29421E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.29604E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29784E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29956E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30124E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30287E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.30338E+00 608.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27749E+00 625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23622E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21558E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20010E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18760E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17705E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16776E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15949E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15212E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14543E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13645E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13115E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12624E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12160E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11732E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 2 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.11322E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10940E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10583E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10237E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99142E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96119E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93207E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90448E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87852E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85405E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83045E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80786E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78647E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76620E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74684E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72813E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71003E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69279E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67636E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66067E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64568E-01 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 3 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.63135E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61726E-01 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60374E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59077E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57833E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56639E-01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55491E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54387E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53325E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52293E-01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51273E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50290E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49341E-01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48426E-01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47542E-01 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46688E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45862E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45063E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44290E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43542E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42817E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 4 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.42105E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41409E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40734E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40079E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39443E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38826E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38226E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37644E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37077E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36527E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35991E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35469E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34961E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34466E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33981E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33508E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33046E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32588E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32141E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31705E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31279E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 5 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.30864E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30458E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30063E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29676E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29298E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28929E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28569E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28216E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27871E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27534E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27204E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26881E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26565E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26256E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25953E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25656E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25366E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25081E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24803E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24529E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24261E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 6 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.23995E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23733E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23477E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23226E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22979E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22737E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22500E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22267E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22039E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21814E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21594E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21377E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21164E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20954E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20747E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20544E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20344E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20148E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19955E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19765E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19579E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 7 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.19395E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19215E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19038E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18863E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18692E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18523E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18357E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18193E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18032E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17874E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17718E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17564E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17413E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17264E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17117E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16973E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16831E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16690E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16552E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16416E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16280E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 8 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.16146E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16014E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15884E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15756E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15630E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15505E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15382E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15261E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15142E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15024E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14907E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14793E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14680E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14568E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14458E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14349E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14242E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14136E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14032E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13929E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13827E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 9 atdublinconstruction_max_conc_distance.txt 0.13727E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13628E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13530E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13433E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13338E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13244E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13151E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13059E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12968E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12878E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12789E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12702E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12616E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12530E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 10 atdublinoperation.log Start date and time 07/31/18 11:47:33 AERSCREEN 16216 At Dublin Operation ----------------- DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ----------------- METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** --------------- ---------------- Emission Rate: 0.828E-02 g/s 0.657E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 1217.00 meters 3992.78 feet Area Source Width: 265.00 meters 869.42 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 59583 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet Page 1 atdublinoperation.log No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION OFF AERSCREEN output file: atdublinoperation.out Page 2 atdublinoperation.log *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 07/31/18 11:48:39 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Page 3 atdublinoperation.log Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page 4 atdublinoperation.log AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 Page 5 atdublinoperation.log ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 6 atdublinoperation.log *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 7 atdublinoperation.log ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 07/31/18 11:49:22 REFINE started 07/31/18 11:49:22 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 8 atdublinoperation.log *** NONE *** REFINE ended 07/31/18 11:49:27 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 07/31/18 11:49:27 Page 9 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.14543E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14728E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14914E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15093E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15261E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15425E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15584E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15733E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15878E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16019E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16152E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16442E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16577E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16709E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16836E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16961E+01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17081E+01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17198E+01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17311E+01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17422E+01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.17530E+01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17637E+01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17739E+01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17838E+01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17934E+01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.17965E+01 608.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16432E+01 625.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13988E+01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12766E+01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11849E+01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11109E+01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10484E+01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99338E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94445E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90077E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86115E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80798E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77660E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74755E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72004E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69469E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 2 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.67042E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64784E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62669E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60620E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58707E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56917E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55193E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53559E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52022E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50573E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49176E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47838E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46571E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45371E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44225E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43117E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42045E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41024E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40051E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39122E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38235E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 3 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.37386E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36552E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35751E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34983E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34246E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33539E+00 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32859E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32206E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31577E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30966E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30362E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29779E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29218E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28676E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28152E+00 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27646E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27158E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26684E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26227E+00 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25784E+00 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25354E+00 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 4 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.24933E+00 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24521E+00 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24121E+00 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23733E+00 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23357E+00 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22991E+00 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22636E+00 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22291E+00 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21956E+00 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21630E+00 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21312E+00 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21003E+00 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20703E+00 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20410E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20122E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19842E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19569E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19297E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19032E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18774E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18522E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 5 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.18276E+00 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18036E+00 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17802E+00 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17573E+00 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17349E+00 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17131E+00 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16917E+00 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16708E+00 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16504E+00 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16304E+00 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16109E+00 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15918E+00 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15731E+00 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15548E+00 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15368E+00 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15193E+00 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15021E+00 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14852E+00 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14687E+00 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14525E+00 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14366E+00 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 6 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.14209E+00 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14054E+00 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13902E+00 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13753E+00 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13607E+00 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13464E+00 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13323E+00 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13186E+00 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13050E+00 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12917E+00 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12787E+00 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12659E+00 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12532E+00 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12408E+00 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12285E+00 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12165E+00 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12047E+00 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11930E+00 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11816E+00 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11704E+00 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11594E+00 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 7 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.11485E+00 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11378E+00 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11273E+00 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11170E+00 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11068E+00 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10968E+00 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10870E+00 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10773E+00 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10678E+00 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10584E+00 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10492E+00 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10401E+00 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10311E+00 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10223E+00 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10136E+00 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10051E+00 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99663E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98833E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98015E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97207E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96403E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 8 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.95610E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94829E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94059E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93300E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92551E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91813E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91086E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90369E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89661E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88963E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88275E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87596E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86927E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86266E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85614E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84971E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84336E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83710E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83092E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82481E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81879E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 9 atdublinoperation_max_conc_distance.txt 0.81284E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80697E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80118E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79546E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78980E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78422E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77871E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77327E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76789E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76258E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75734E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75215E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74703E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74198E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 10 EXHIBIT B Scott Cashen, M.S.—Independent Biological Resources Consultant 3264 Hudson Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 1 August 15, 2018 Ms. Nirit Lotan Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the At Dublin Project Dear Ms. Lotan: This letter contains my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared by the City of Dublin (“City”) for the At Dublin Project (“Project”). Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS Development Company, is proposing to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate a mixed-use development that would allow up to 454,500 square feet of commercial uses and up to 680 residential units on 76.2 acres of undeveloped land in the City of Dublin. I am an environmental biologist with 25 years of professional experience in wildlife ecology and natural resources management. I have served as a biological resources expert for over 100 projects in California. My experience and scope of work in this regard has included assisting various clients with evaluations of biological resource issues, reviewing environmental compliance documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and submitting written comments in response to CEQA and NEPA documents. My work has included the preparation of written and oral testimony for the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and Federal courts. My educational background includes a B.S. in Resource Management from the University of California at Berkeley, and a M.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Pennsylvania State University. A true and correct copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached hereto. The comments herein are based on my review of the environmental documents prepared for the Project, a review of scientific literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur in the Project area, consultations with other biological resource experts, and the knowledge and experience I have acquired during my 25-year career in the field of natural resources management. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Applicant’s biological resources consultant, WRA, visited the Project site three times. WRA first visited the Project site on December 7, 2017.1 During that site visit: “[t]he Project Area was traversed on foot for the survey, which sought to determine (1) plant communities present within the Project Area, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present.”2 WRA then visited the Project site on February 22 and March 19, 2018, to conduct a delineation of Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State.3 According to WRA’s Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”): The site visits conducted for the wetland delineation and the burrowing owl survey do not constitute a protocol-level survey and are not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species… For species with a moderate or high potential to occur within the Project Area, but which have not been observed on the site, the site assessment conducted for this report may not be sufficient to determine presence or absence of a species to the specifications of regulatory agencies. In these cases, a species may be assumed to be present for the purposes of the City of Dublin’s environmental review under CEQA, but further protocol-level special-status species surveys may ultimately be necessary for the Zeiss Group [sic] to obtain permits or approvals from other regulatory agencies.4 Therefore, based on the information provided in the BRA, the following species are assumed to be present on the Project site: San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and loggerhead shrike. In addition, Congdon’s tarplant is known to occur on the Project site.5 WRA conducted “protocol-level” rare plant surveys during the December 7 and March 19 site visits.6 However, those surveys were conducted outside of the blooming period associated with San Joaquin spearscale (Apr-Oct) and saline clover (Apr-Jun),7 and thus, they do not constitute the protocol-level surveys needed to provide reliable information on the presence (or absence) of either species. WRA did not conduct protocol-level surveys for burrowing owls,8 nor did it conduct focused surveys for the white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike (there are no adopted survey protocols for these two species).9 Data from protocol-level (or focused) surveys are required to fully assess existing conditions, 1 BRA, p. 9. 2 Ibid. 3 BRA, p. 1. 4 BRA, p. 11. 5 BRA, p. 18. 6 BRA, p. 1. 7 BRA, Appendix B. 8 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Appendix D. 9 See methods section in BRA, p. 9. 3 analyze Project impacts, and formulate appropriate mitigation. Specifically, data from protocol- level surveys provide information on the presence, distribution, and abundance of sensitive biological resources at a project site. These data are essential to a proper understanding of the magnitude and severity of a project’s impacts to specific resources (e.g., various species), and thus, the feasibility of various mitigation options (e.g., impact avoidance). Deferring the surveys until after completion of the CEQA review process—as proposed in the DEIR—precludes proper understanding of the magnitude and severity of the Project’s impacts. It also effectively robs the public, resource agencies, and scientific community from being able to submit informed comments pertaining to Project impacts and mitigation, and from having those comments vetted during the environmental review process. These sentiments are reflected in the survey protocols prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), California Burrowing Owl Consortium, and California Native Plant Society.10 Without protocol-level survey data, the City can only speculate on the presence of sensitive biological resources at the Project site. Similarly, without abundance data, the City has no ability to assess the magnitude and severity of Project impacts to various resources, and subsequently, the ability of the proposed mitigation to reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. This is important because, under CEQA, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts. Because the City does not have the data needed to assess the level of impacts, it has no basis for its conclusion that all potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to less-than- significant levels by the measures proposed in the DEIR. For example, the City has concluded that development of a burrowing owl mitigation plan would effectively mitigate significant impacts to the species—regardless of how many burrowing owls occur at the site, and irrespective of the importance of those owls in maintaining the local population. This conclusion is unrealistic, and as discussed further below, contradicts existing evidence. Due to these issues, the City needs to prepare a revised DEIR once protocol-level surveys have been completed for the Project. Vernal Pool Branchiopods The Project site provides potential habitat for the federally endangered longhorn fairy shrimp and the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, both of which have been documented in the vicinity of the Project site.11 However, according to the BRA, these fairy shrimp species are 10 California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline>. See also California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843>. See also California Native Plant Society. 2001 (Revised). CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Available at: <http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf>. See also California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83842>. 11 DEIR, p. 7-7. 4 unlikely to inhabit the Project site.12 The DEIR adopts this conclusion and provides no further discussion of either species.13 By doing so, the DEIR fails to properly establish existing conditions at the Project site, as required by CEQA. Longhorn Fairy Shrimp The BRA’s rationale for discounting the potential for longhorn fairy shrimp at the Project site is that: (a) the Project Area does not contain clear depression pools in sandstone outcrops that typically support longhorn fairy shrimp in this portion of its range; (b) the Project Area is not designated critical habitat for the species; and (c) the nearest recorded occurrence of the species is over 5 miles from the Project Area.14 As discussed below, these reasons do not constitute substantial evidence for eliminating the potential for longhorn fairy shrimp to occur at the Project site, and thus, the potential for the Project to have significant impacts on the species. First, longhorn fairy shrimp are not limited to clear depression pools in sandstone outcrops.15 As the BRA acknowledges, the specific pool characteristics associated with longhorn fairy shrimp habitat are largely unknown.16 Whereas the three occurrence records from Contra Costa and Alameda Counties are associated with sandstone outcrop pools, longhorn fairy shrimp are also known to occur in alkaline grassland vernal pools, roadside ditches, and a constructed wetland.17 The Project site contains alkaline grassland vernal pools and features comparable to roadside ditches.18 As a result, the absence of sandstone outcrop pools at the Project site cannot be used to eliminate the potential for longhorn fairy shrimp to occur at the Project site. Second, potential habitat for the longhorn fairy shrimp is not limited to designated critical habitat. Indeed, just because an area is outside of designated critical habitat does not mean that it has no value to the species.19 There are numerous examples of federally listed species occurring in areas that have not been designated critical habitat, and conversely, critical habitat areas that are unoccupied by federally listed species. Third, the fact that the nearest recorded occurrence of longhorn fairy shrimp is over five miles away is not evidence that the species could not occur at the Project site. As the BRA acknowledges, longhorn fairy shrimp occurrences are “highly disjunct.”20 Moreover, because the BRA provides no evidence that potential habitat within five miles of the Project site has been surveyed for longhorn fairy shrimp, the lack of occurrence records within five miles of the Project site is not evidence that the species is absent from that area. 12 BRA, p. 27. 13 DEIR, p. 7-7. 14 BRA, p. 29. 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. p. II-187. 16 BRA, p. 29. 17 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jul 3. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 18 DEIR, Appendix C-3: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report. 19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Critical Habitat: What is it? p. 2. 20 BRA, p. 29. 5 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The BRA acknowledges that the vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs in a variety of both natural and artificial wetland habitats (e.g., alkali pools, ephemeral drainages, stock ponds, roadside ditches, vernal swales, and rock outcrop pools).21 It further acknowledges that occupied wetlands are typically small (0.05 to 0.1 acre) and pond for a relatively short duration (3 to 4 weeks).22 The six wetlands on the Project site have characteristics that are consistent with this description of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.23 The BRA’s rationale for discounting the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp at the Project site is that: “regular site disturbance (e.g. discing), surrounding development and lack of occurrences within the vicinity of the Project Area make it unlikely that this species would be present within the Project Area.”24 As described below, these are specious arguments that are not supported by scientific evidence. First, according to the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report, two of the wetlands (i.e., W01 and W02) are located in an area that does not appear to experience significant disturbance.25 Therefore, “regular site disturbance” cannot be used to discount the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp at these two wetlands. Second, ground disturbance activities do not preclude the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp. For example, in Contra Costa County over 100 vernal pool fairy shrimp were documented in a “non-vegetated depression in dirt road along tracks—partially scraped by bulldozer,” and that had “routine vehicle traffic through [the] area.”26 Third, development surrounding the Project site does not preclude the potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp. Vernal pool fairy shrimp populations are naturally isolated from other populations and are distributed in discontinuous vernal pool systems. As a result, in listing the species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that “environmental requirements, not dispersal, is likely the limiting factor in the distribution of the fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp.”27 The BRA provides no evidence that the surrounding development, or any other factor, has eliminated the environmental requirements needed to support vernal pool fairy shrimp at the Project site. Fourth, the lack of occurrences within the vicinity of the Project Area does not preclude the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp. The vernal pool fairy shrimp naturally occurs in discrete 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 DEIR, Appendix C-3: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report. 24 BRA, p. 29. 25 DEIR, Appendix C-3: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report, Section 5.1.1. 26 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Occurrence No. 212. 27 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and threatened status for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Fed Regist. 59(180):48136-48153. 6 (isolated) populations throughout its geographic range.28 Some of these populations are located many (up to 15) miles away from the next nearest population.29 California Linderiella Neither the DEIR nor the BRA mentions the California linderiella, which is considered a special- status species (NatureServe Rank of G2G3 S2S3).30 California linderiella occupy the same types of habitat as the vernal pool fairy shrimp,31 and they have been detected in seasonal wetlands comparable to those found on the Project site.32 As a result, the California linderiella has the potential to occur at the Project site and may be impacted by the Project. Compliance with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Mitigation incorporated into the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) and Specific Plan requires species-specific surveys for special-status invertebrates in appropriate wetland habitats prior to approval of specific projects in the Reduced Planning Area (which encompasses the Project site).33 The GPA does not relieve an applicant from conducting those species- specific surveys if its consultant concludes special-status invertebrates are “unlikely” to occur. As a result, species-specific surveys for the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and California linderiella are required prior to approval of the Project.34 Until those surveys have been conducted, direct and indirect impacts to the site’s wetlands represent unexamined, potentially significant impacts to the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and California linderiella. Core, Critical, and Unique Populations The DEIR states that the City of Dublin provides suitable and occupied habitat for the Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite.35 It further states that the City of Dublin “may also support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and long‐term survival of” these species.36 Incredibly, the DEIR provides no further discussion or analysis of these core, critical, or unique populations, including whether any would be affected by the Project. This precludes proper 28 Ibid. 29 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 30 G2G3 = high to moderate risk of global extinction. S2S3 = high to moderate risk of statewide extinction. 31 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. pp. II-214 through II-220. 32 E.g., See EOndx #94421 in California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Mar 6. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 33 City of Dublin. 1993. Addendum to Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. p. 22. 34 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Survey Guidelines for Large Listed Branchiopods. 24 pp. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/survey-protocols- guidelines/Documents/VernalPoolBranchiopodSurveyGuidelines_20150531.pdf>. 35 DEIR, p. 7-21. 36 Ibid. 7 understanding of the environmental setting, Project impacts, and the adequacy of the City’s proposed mitigation. Burrowing Owl Status of the Local and Regional Burrowing Owl Populations The DEIR fails to disclose the status and demography of the local and regional burrowing owl populations. This information is an essential component of the DEIR because it enables the public and decision makers to evaluate the relative significance of Project impacts to the overall burrowing owl population. Burrowing owl populations have declined dramatically in the San Francisco Bay Area (“SFBA”) since the 1992 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR was prepared.37 The species has been extirpated, or nearly extirpated, from six SFBA counties (Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and San Mateo).38 Although burrowing owls were once abundant throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties, they are now primarily limited to the eastern portions of those counties.39 By 2014, only two “large” breeding colonies of burrowing owls remained in Alameda County: one in the Altamont Hills region, and one in the Camp Parks area.40 The Project site is located at the periphery of the Camp Parks burrowing owl population, which is the only breeding population of burrowing owls remaining in the Livermore-Amador Valley.41 This population, however, appears to be rapidly declining due to urban development projects that were recently authorized by the City of Dublin.42 As a result, the loss of burrowing owls and habitat from the Project site heightens the potential that the breeding population will be extirpated from the entire Livermore-Amador Valley. 37 Wilkerson RL and RB Siegel. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10:1-36. See also Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. Available at: <http://www.calenv.com/California_Environmental_Services/Publications_files/Townsend%20and%20Lenihan_Bu rrowing%20Owl.pdf>. See also Alameda Creek Alliance. 2014 Mar 21. Lawsuit Challenges Dublin Development That Will Evict Burrowing Owls [Press Release]. Available at: <http://www.alamedacreek.org/newsroom/pdf/press%20releases/2014/Camp%20Parks%20PR%203-21-14.pdf>. 38 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. See also Alameda Creek Alliance. 2014 Mar 21. Lawsuit Challenges Dublin Development That Will Evict Burrowing Owls [Press Release]. Available at: <http://www.alamedacreek.org/newsroom/pdf/press%20releases/2014/Camp%20Parks%20PR%203-21-14.pdf>. 41 Ibid. 42 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. Appendix 2. 8 Burrowing Owl Population on the Project Site According to the DEIR, burrowing owls were documented within the Project site in 2004 and 2009.43 The DEIR fails to disclose that nesting burrowing owls were also detected at the Project site in 2005, 2008, and 2010.44 WRA apparently surveyed for burrowing owls during its visit to the Project site on December 7, 2017 (i.e., during the non-breeding season).45 Based on that visit, WRA concluded that the Project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls, and that the species has a high potential to occur.46 However, WRA failed to conduct any additional surveys to determine the abundance and distribution of burrowing owls at the site, or to determine if burrowing owls still use the Project site for nesting. Burrowing owls often vacate nesting territories and are more difficult to detect during the non- breeding season.47 As a result, non-breeding season survey results are typically inconclusive and cannot be used as a substitute for breeding season surveys.48 Consequently, WRA’s failure to detect burrowing owls during one non-breeding season survey is not evidence that the site is currently uninhabited by the species—as the DEIR alleges.49 Indeed, the BRA states: “[t]he site visits conducted for the wetland delineation and the burrowing owl survey do not constitute a protocol-level survey and are not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species.”50 Burrowing owls can be difficult to detect due to their cryptic coloration, extensive use of burrows, and tendency to flush (fly away) when approached.51 As a result, burrowing owl researchers and the CDFW have concluded that four independent breeding season surveys are necessary to provide reliable information on the presence of burrowing owls.52 Data from the four surveys (termed “detection surveys” in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) are essential to avoiding, minimizing, and properly mitigating the direct and indirect effects of the Project on burrowing owls. 43 DEIR, p. 7-6. 44 eBird. 2018. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available at: <http://www.ebird.org>. 45 BRA, p. 24. 46 BRA, pp. 24 and 33, and DEIR, p. 7-6. 47 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 6. See also Center for Biological Diversity, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and five others. 2003. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission and supporting information for listing the California population of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as an endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. pp. 11 and 12. 48 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 6. 49 DEIR, p. 7-15. 50 BRA, p. 11. 51 Klute DS, LW Ayers, MT Green, WH Howe, SL Jones, JA Shaffer, SR Sheffield, TS Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western Burrowing Owl in the United States. Bio Tech Pub FWS/BTP- R6001-2003. Washington: US Fish and Wildlife. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/migbirds/species/birds/wbo/Western%20Burrowing%20Owlrev73003a.pdf>. 52 See Appendix D In: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 9 The DEIR requires the Applicant to conduct two pre-construction surveys prior to ground- disturbing activities at the Project site. Although CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (“Staff Report”) recommends “take avoidance” (i.e., pre-construction) surveys, the Staff Report makes it clear that those surveys are not a substitute for the four “detection surveys” required to assess Project impacts and formulate appropriate mitigation.53 Because WRA failed to conduct any “detection surveys,” the City lacks the information needed to fully disclose and evaluate Project impacts to burrowing owls, and perhaps more importantly, to ensure effective mitigation. The need to establish the baseline population of burrowing owls on a site prior to assessing impacts and formulating mitigation measures is emphasized in CDFW’s Staff Report, which states: The following three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether projects will result in impacts to burrowing owls. The information gained from these steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The steps for project impact evaluations are: 1) habitat assessment, 2) surveys, and 3) impact assessment. ….Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be disturbed by a project or activity will enable the Department, reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures…Detailed information, such as approximate home ranges of each individual or of family units, as well as foraging areas as related to the proposed project, will be important to document for evaluating impacts, planning avoidance measure implementation and for mitigation measure performance monitoring.54 Similarly, California Burrowing Owl Consortium mitigation guidelines state: There is often inadequate information about the presence of owls on a project site until ground disturbance is imminent. When this occurs there is usually insufficient time to evaluate impacts to owls and their habitat. The absence of standardized field survey methods impairs adequate and consistent impact assessment during regulatory review processes, which in turn reduces the possibility of effective mitigation.55 It is not possible to effectively assess Project impacts and the City’s proposed mitigation until protocol surveys that adhere to CDFW guidelines have been conducted. As a result, the City must require the Applicant to conduct the detection surveys described in CDFW’s Staff Report, and the results of those surveys need to be released in a revised CEQA document so that they can be thoroughly vetted by the public, resource agencies, and decision makers during the CEQA review process. 53 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 54 Ibid, pp. 5, 6 and 29. 55 See p. i In: The California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. [emphasis added]. 10 IMPACT ANALYSIS ISSUES Burrowing Owl Habitat Loss Habitat loss caused by development is the most immediate threat to burrowing owls that reside in high growth areas of the San Francisco Bay Area.56 The further decline of burrowing owls in the few remaining core population areas—such as the Camp Parks area—will have a significant effect on the overall persistence of burrowing owls in the region. This is exemplified by the extirpation of almost all burrowing owl colonies from western Alameda and Contra Costa counties following build out in the 1980s and 1990s.57 The DEIR fails to analyze how the loss of burrowing owl habitat from the Project site may directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affect the local (Camp Parks) burrowing owl population, which is the only breeding population remaining in the Livermore-Amador Valley.58 Instead, it jumps to the conclusion that Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 (Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures) would reduce potential impacts to the species to a less-than-significant level.59 This conclusion is not supported by evidence because the DEIR provides no assurances that Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 would, or could, mitigate significant impacts to the local or regional burrowing owl populations. Burrow Exclusion The Project may involve the “passive relocation” of burrowing owls from the Project site by excluding them from their burrows.60,61 The DEIR, however, fails to evaluate impacts to burrowing owls due to burrow exclusion, or to identify mitigation measures sufficient to reduce such impacts below a level of significance. Consistent with CDFW guidelines, burrow exclusion is a potentially significant impact under CEQA that must be analyzed.62 Specifically, burrow exclusion may result in: (a) significant loss of habitat for reproduction, refuge from predators, and shelter from weather; (b) increased stress on burrowing owls and reduced reproductive rates; (c) increased depredation; (d) increased energetic costs; and (e) risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows.63 The City must disclose and thoroughly analyze the impacts associated with excluding burrowing owls from their burrows on the Project site. 56 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. 57 Ibid. See also California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Aug 7. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. See also Glover SG. 2009. Breeding bird atlas of Contra Costa County. Mount Diablo Audubon Society, Walnut Creek (CA). 260pp. 58 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. 59 DEIR, p. 7-15. 60 DEIR, p. 7-18. 61 Although not specified in the DEIR, burrow exclusion entails the installation of one-way doors on occupied burrows so owls can exit, but not re-enter, the burrows. 62 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, p. 10. 63 Ibid, pp. 10 and 21. 11 The need for full analysis of potential impacts associated with passive relocation (i.e., exclusion) of burrowing owls is further supported by research that indicates most relocation projects have resulted in fewer breeding pairs of burrowing owls at the mitigation site than at the original site, and that relocation projects generally have failed to produce self-sustaining populations.64 Investigators attribute the limited success of relocation to: (a) strong site tenacity exhibited by burrowing owls, and (b) potential risks associated with forcing owls to move into unfamiliar and perhaps less preferable habitats.65 The DEIR’s failure to analyze potential impacts associated with burrow exclusion is exacerbated by its deferral of the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan.66 This makes it impossible for the public, resource agencies, and decision makers to evaluate the probability that there will be significant impacts to owls that are excluded from the Project site. At a minimum, the City must provide critical details associated with the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan, so those critical aspects of the plan can be vetted during the CEQA review process. These include: (a) information on the artificial burrows that would be installed prior to burrow exclusion; (b) a description of the artificial burrow maintenance program; (c) a description of the monitoring program, including the frequency of monitoring and the information that will be provided in monitoring reports;67 (d) the success criteria; and (e) the contingency measures that will be implemented if success criteria are not achieved.68 Because the DEIR fails to provide these critical details, it fails to provide substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusion that impacts to burrowing owls would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite The Project site provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike. In addition, the Project site provides foraging habitat, and potential nesting habitat, for the white- tailed kite (a white-tailed was observed foraging at the Project site during the 7 December 2017 site visit).69 The DEIR, however, fails to provide any specific analysis of Project impacts to these two species, including how the loss of approximately 77 acres of habitat might affect the local and regional populations. 64 Smith BW, JR Belthoff. 2001. Burrowing owls and development: short-distance nest burrow relocation to minimize construction impacts. J. Raptor Research 35:385-391. 65 Ibid. 66 DEIR, p. 7-18. 67 The DEIR (p. 7-19) states: “[m]onitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.” However, the CDFW Staff Report does not specify a monitoring program. See California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Appendix E, p. 32. 68 See California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Appendix E. 69 BRA, p. 24. 12 Cumulative Impacts The DEIR’s cumulative impacts analyses fail to comply with CEQA Guidelines § 15130. Specifically: CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1) state that the cumulative impacts analysis must contain either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. The DEIR fails to provide either of these elements. This precludes the ability to independently analyze cumulative impacts and the Project’s contribution to those impacts. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(3) state that lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. Although the DEIR defines the geographic scope as the City of Dublin, it fails to provide an explanation for that geographic limitation.70 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(4) require a summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by cumulative projects, with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(5) require a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. As described below, the DEIR fails to satisfy these requirements. Special-status Species The DEIR fails to provide any actual analysis of cumulative impacts to special-status species that would (or could) be affected by the Project. Specifically, there is no analysis of: (a) the amount of habitat that existed prior to anthropogenic disturbance; (b) the amount of habitat that has been, or will be, affected by past, present, and probable future projects; or (c) the amount of habitat that is needed to maintain viable populations of the various special-status species that could be affected by the Project. Indeed, the DEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts to special-status species is limited to the following statements: The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite would be reduced through adherence to MM BIO-1.1. MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3. Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to similar standard mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on wetlands to less than cumulatively considerable. As such, cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.71 The DEIR’s rationale is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons: 70 DEIR, p. 7-21. 71 Ibid. 13 First, the DEIR fails to ensure that the compensatory mitigation required under MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3 would be within the City of Dublin (i.e., the geographic area analyzed for cumulative impacts). If compensatory mitigation is not accomplished in the City of Dublin, cumulative impacts to special-status species habitat within the geographic area analyzed in the DEIR would remain potentially significant. Second, the DEIR acknowledges the City of Dublin may support core, critical, or unique populations essential to the recovery and long‐term survival of Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite.72 The DEIR, however, fails to provide any evidence or assurances that the mitigation proposed in MM BIO- 1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3 would offset cumulative impacts to these core, critical, or unique populations. For example, although the Project could have significant impacts on a critical population of burrowing owls (i.e., the “Camp Parks” population), the DEIR does not ensure the burrowing owl mitigation proposed in MM BIO-1.3 would offset impacts to that population. Third, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that “adherence to similar standard mitigation” has, and would, mitigate significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that mitigation required by the City of Dublin for other projects has been ineffective in preventing significant impacts to special-status species. For example, burrowing owl mitigation imposed by the City for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project has not offset impacts to the core breeding population at Camp Parks, nor has it provided any benefit to the breeding population as a whole.73 Indeed, the core breeding population at Camp Parks now appears to be on the verge of extinction due to development projects authorized by the City.74 As a result, the City must provide reasonable analysis of cumulative impacts to the local (i.e., City of Dublin) and regional (i.e., Livermore-Amador Valley) burrowing owl populations, and that analysis must consider realistic inferences on the efficacy of “standard mitigation” given the failure of previous mitigation efforts. Fourth, habitat loss is a major threat to the loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite.75 However, the DEIR does not incorporate compensatory mitigation for Project impacts to habitat for these two species, nor has the City required other projects to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite habitat. As a result, the Project’s contribution to potentially significant cumulative impacts remains unmitigated. 72 Ibid. 73 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. Appendix 2. 74 Ibid. 75 Shuford WD, T Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. See also Kalinowski RS, MD Johnson. 2010. Influence of Suburban Habitat on a Wintering Bird Community in Coastal California. The Condor 12(2):274–282. 14 Wetlands The DEIR fails to provide any information on wetlands (and other jurisdictional waters) that have been, or will be, affected by past, present, and probable future projects. This includes information on the type, amount, and ecological functions of wetlands affected under the cumulative impacts scenario. Indeed, the DEIR’s analysis is limited to the statements that: 1. “[t]he project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to less-than-cumulatively considerable.”76 2. [t]he required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on wetlands to less than cumulatively considerable. These conclusions are not justified because MM BIO-3.1 does not identify how the City would mitigate the Project’s impacts on wetlands; it simply requires the preparation of a wetland mitigation plan after the CEQA review process terminates. Moreover, even if one assumes the wetland mitigation plan includes compensatory mitigation that is successful in preventing no net loss of wetland functions and area, MM BIO-3.1 does not require the compensatory mitigation to be within the City of Dublin (i.e., the area analyzed for cumulative impacts), and thus, cumulative impacts to wetlands within the City of Dublin would remain significant. MITIGATION ISSUES MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants The DEIR requires the Applicant to conduct a focused survey prior to construction to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species on the Project site. If no special-status plant species are found during the survey, then no additional mitigation measures would be implemented. However, if Congdon’s tarplant or any other special-status plant species are detected during the survey, additional mitigation measures would be required. There are several problems with the proposed mitigation: First, Congdon’s tarplant is known to occur at the Project site. Therefore, there is no basis for making additional mitigation contingent on the results of a future survey of unknown quality, and conducted by a biologist with uncertain qualifications. This is especially true for annual plants such as Congdon’s tarplant, because the presence and abundance of annual plants can fluctuate dramatically from year to year due to climatic conditions. Thus, the absence of Congdon’s tarplant from the Project site during a pre-construction survey may be the result of adverse survey conditions rather than actual absence of the species. As WRA’s Rare Plant Survey Report acknowledges: “the failure to locate a rare plant occurrence during one field season does not constitute evidence that this plant occurrence no longer exists at this location, particularly if adverse conditions are present.”77 76 DEIR, p. 7-21. 77 DEIR, Appendix C-2: Rare Plant Survey Report, p. 7. 15 Second, the DEIR states that compensatory mitigation would not be required if activity exclusion zones can be installed around special-status plants. Based on the site plan, all existing plants will be directly or indirectly affected by the Project.78 However, even if activity exclusion zones are feasible during construction of the Project, the DEIR fails to incorporate measures to protect the plants from human disturbance and other indirect effects (e.g., altered hydrology) after the Project is built. This issue is exacerbated by the DEIR’s failure to incorporate performance standards for special-status plants that are “protected” by activity exclusion zones. Isolated “islands” of special-status plants disconnected by the Project from natural processes should not be considered protected because isolated populations are not sustainable. As a result, activity exclusion zones would not ensure Project impacts to special-status plants are mitigated to a less- than-significant level. Compensatory Mitigation Strategy The DEIR requires the Applicant to prepare a mitigation plan if impacts to Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status plant species cannot be avoided. According to the DEIR: “[a] mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of special-status plants.” The DEIR cannot defer formulation of the mitigation plan unless it establishes fundamental aspects of that plan in the DEIR. These include: (a) the performance standards (or success criteria) for the proposed mitigation, (b) a definitive enforcement mechanism that ensures performance standards are met; (c) the contingency or remedial action measures that would be triggered if success standards are not achieved; (d) the measures that would be implemented to ensure the long-term protection and management of sensitive biological resources at mitigation sites; and (e) the required monitoring program, including the monitoring techniques, effort, and frequency. Because the DEIR lacks these fundamental details, the City has not ensured Project impacts to special-status plants would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The DEIR’s deferral of the mitigation plan is exacerbated by its failure to provide evidence that the proposed mitigation is feasible. There do not appear to be any mitigation banks that sell credits for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant.79 In addition, the City has not identified the in-lieu fee program that might be used for Project mitigation, nor do there appear to be any in-lieu fee programs that cover impacts to Congdon’s tarplant. Whereas the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas supporting Congdon’s tarplant is an acceptable option, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that sites suitable for acquisition exist—especially given the demand generated by other 78 Indirect impacts associated with the Project include trampling, pollution, altered hydrology, shading, invasive plants, and pesticide drift. 79 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Conservation and Mitigation Banks Established in California by CDFW [website]. Available at: <https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Banking/Approved- Banks#r3>. 16 projects requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant.80 As a result, the City needs to produce a revised DEIR that identifies the: (a) potential mitigation sites, and status of Congdon’s tarplant at those sites; (b) proposed mitigation ratio; (c) performance standards for the mitigation sites; (d) required monitoring program; and, (e) measures that will be implemented to ensure the long-term protection and management of Congdon’s tarplant populations at the mitigation sites. In addition, the DEIR needs to establish the required timeframe for implementation of the mitigation plan. Currently, the DEIR only requires approval of the mitigation plan prior to Project impacts; there are no deadlines for implementation of the plan (i.e., the acquisition and protection of off-site mitigation areas). As a result, successful implementation of the mitigation plan is uncertain and unenforceable. Compensatory Mitigation Ratio According to the DEIR, the compensatory mitigation ratio for Project impacts to special-status plants would be at least 1:1. However, the forthcoming mitigation plan, which would be approved by the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact special-status plants, would identify “the appropriate mitigation ratios.”81 The DEIR fails to identify whether the compensatory mitigation ratio would be based on the number of plants impacted by the Project or the total amount of special-status plant habitat impacted by the Project. Moreover, as the lead agency the City is responsible for determining the mitigation ratio(s) needed to mitigate the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant levels; the City cannot defer that analysis to another agency, and itself, after the CEQA review process terminates. The Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”) establishes the standard for mitigation needed to conserve species and habitat in Eastern Alameda County. The mitigation proposed in the DEIR does not adhere to the EACCS. Specifically, the EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 5:1 for impacts to focal plant species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant).82 In addition to failing to adhere to EACCS, the default ratio (i.e., 1:1) proposed in the DEIR is not consistent with other projects in Dublin. For example, the City is requiring a 5:1 ratio for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant at the Zeiss Innovation Center Project site.83 The DEIR fails to explain why a 5:1 ratio was needed to mitigate impacts at the Zeiss project site, while the proposed Project only requires a 1:1 ratio. Because the DEIR defers critical aspects of the mitigation plan, and does not incorporate performance standards for the mitigation, the City’s conclusion that Project impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other special-status plant species would be reduced to a less-than- significant level is not supported by substantial evidence. 80 Other projects in the City of Dublin that require mitigation for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant include the Ikea Retail Center Project, Zeiss Innovation Center Project, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project, Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) Project, and East County Hall of Justice Project, among others. 81 DEIR, p. 7-17. 82 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. Table 3-12. 83 City of Dublin. 2017 Dec 8. Zeiss Innovation Center: Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. p. 29. 17 MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl The DEIR incorporates the following mitigation measures for Project impacts to burrowing owls: (1) pre-construction surveys that would be conducted immediately before ground-disturbing activities; (2) avoidance measures; (3) burrow exclusion; and, (4) preparation and implementation of a mitigation plan if avoidance is not possible. As discussed below, these measures fail to properly address and mitigate the impacts on burrowing owls: Burrowing Owl Survey The DEIR requires a pre-construction survey no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and a second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. Two pre- construction surveys that would be conducted during any time of the year do not provide reliable information on burrowing owls that may be impacted by the Project. As discussed previously, the two “take avoidance” (pre-construction) surveys described in CDFW’s Staff Report are not intended to serve as a substitute for the four “detection” surveys needed to identify presence, assess impacts, and formulate appropriate mitigation. Rather, the “take avoidance” surveys are intended to confirm no new owls have colonized the site since completion of the “detection” surveys. According to CDFW’s Staff Report: “[a]ny new burrowing owl colonizing the project site after the CEQA document has been adopted may constitute changed circumstances that should be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document.”84 Because WRA did not conduct the surveys needed to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls at the Project site,85 any burrowing owls occupying the site when the pre-construction surveys are conducted would constitute changed circumstances that will need to be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document. The DEIR, however, fails to incorporate any provisions for re-circulating the EIR should owls be detected during the pre-construction surveys. Because the Project could have severe consequences on persistence of the local and regional burrowing owl populations, it is imperative that the public be given an opportunity to review and submit comments on the burrowing owl survey results prior to any Project impacts. The mitigation measure also fails to properly address the impacts because it does not guarantee proper timing, which is crucial to the success of the mitigation. Specifically, the mitigation measure does not require any breeding season surveys to ascertain the importance of the site to breeding burrowing owls. Instead, the surveys would be conducted immediately prior to ground- disturbing activities, which would be at the discretion of the Applicant. This would not ensure impacts to burrowing owls are properly mitigated because burrowing owl activity patterns and habitat use are related to the season. During the breeding season, burrowing owl activity is centered around the nest site(s). As a result, several surveys spaced throughout the breeding season can provide reliable information on site occupancy. However, attachment to the nest site and breeding territory is greatly reduced during the non-breeding season (i.e., owls tend to wander).86 Therefore, pre-construction surveys that are conducted during the non-breeding 84 Ibid, p. 10. [emphasis added]. 85 BRA, p. 11. 86 Coulombe HN. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. The Condor 73(2):162-176. See also Center for Biological Diversity, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and five others. 2003. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission and 18 season would not provide reliable information on owls that use the site, especially to breed.87 This could lead to the false conclusion that the Project would have no impact on the species, and thus, compensatory mitigation is not required (per the conditions established in the DEIR). Because the DEIR fails to require breeding season surveys, the City does not have the basis for its conclusion that impacts to burrowing owls would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Avoidance Measures CDFW’s Staff Report lists several measures that should be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owls.88 These include the implementation of spatial and temporal buffers to avoid direct destruction of burrows and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. They also include ongoing surveillance of the site during project activities. The DEIR fails to incorporate any of the avoidance measures listed in CDFW’s Staff Report. Indeed, the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR are limited to measures that would eliminate habitat from the Project site (i.e., the destruction of burrows and other features that provide cover for burrowing owls).89 Because the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR could have significant impacts on burrowing owls,90 the DEIR needs to clarify that they should only be implemented during the non-breeding season, and only after implementation of the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. This issue is exacerbated because the avoidance measures incorporated into the DEIR lack crucial details for proper implementation. For example, although the DEIR indicates the burrows at the site should be “inspected” for burrowing owls before they are destroyed, it fails to establish the inspection methods. This is important because burrowing owls construct their nests in a cavity at the end of a tunnel.91 The nest cavity is typically located after a turn in the tunnel and may be several feet underground.92 As a result, use of specialized equipment (e.g., fiber optic scope) is required to confirm absence of burrowing owl nests in burrows. Because the DEIR does not require use of specialized equipment to confirm absence, “inspecting” burrows would not mitigate potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls. Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan The DEIR requires the Applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, to prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan “if avoidance of burrowing owls or their burrows is not possible.” As discussed above, the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR are limited to measures that would supporting information for listing the California population of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as an endangered or threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. pp. 11 and 12. 87 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 6. 88 Ibid, pp. 8 though 10. 89 DEIR, p. 7-18. 90 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. pp. 8 through 10. 91 Zarn M. 1974. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endagered Species: Burrowing Owl. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers. Technical Note 11. pp. 8 and 9. See also Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. The Condor 73(2):162-176. 92 Ibid. 19 eliminate habitat from the Project site. This suggests the Applicant would only be required to prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan if it is unable to eliminate all potential habitat from the Project site. The DEIR needs to clarify that the “avoidance” measures incorporated into the DEIR should only be implemented during the non-breeding season, and only after implementation of the Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. In addition, the DEIR should clarify that the CDFW needs to approve the Applicant’s Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation Plan MM BIO-1.2 includes the following provision: If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.93 The burrowing owl mitigation plan is critical to the Project’s ability to adequately mitigate potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls. Specific information pertaining to the City’s mitigation strategy is especially important given the perilous status of the burrowing owl population that remains in the Livermore-Amador Valley. As a result, the City cannot defer critical components of the burrowing owl mitigation plan to analysis that would be conducted after the CEQA review process terminates. This includes the: (1) compensatory mitigation ratio; (2) habitat replacement strategy (e.g., preservation, enhancement, or creation); (3) habitat replacement mechanism (e.g., habitat acquisition, purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, or in- lieu fee); (4) acceptable locations for habitat compensation (e.g., Livermore-Amador Valley); (5) site protection methods; (6) financial assurances; (7) performance standards; and (8) monitoring and reporting requirements. The DEIR’s deferral of these components effectively robs the public from being able to submit comments on fundamental aspects of the mitigation strategy. This is extremely important because neither the CDFW nor the City has an effective oversight approach that ensures compensatory mitigation efforts are effective in reducing impacts to burrowing owls to less-than-significant levels.94 For example, although a lawsuit motivated the City of Dublin to require 313 acres of compensatory mitigation for the Dublin Crossing Project, neither the City nor the CDFW incorporated mechanisms to ensure the compensation lands would mitigate impacts to the thriving and successful burrowing owl colony that occurred at the project site. Indeed, information obtained from a Public Records Act request reveals that the compensation lands do not support any breeding burrowing owls.95 As a result, it is imperative that the public be given an opportunity to review and submit comments on the burrowing owl mitigation plan prior to any Project impacts. 93 DEIR, p. 7-19. 94 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. 43 pp. 95 Ibid, Appendix 2. 20 The DEIR fails to identify the compensatory mitigation ratio that would be applied for Project impacts to burrowing owl habitat. CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation indicates that a ratio of at least 1:1 is required to mitigate impacts to burrowing owl habitat. However, a 1:1 ratio is not likely to be sufficient to mitigate impacts below a level of significance in this case due to the rapid decline of the Camp Parks population96 and the limited availability of compensation habitat to support that population. Accordingly, mitigation imposed by the City should require adherence to the regional-specific Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”). The EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 3:1 (3.5:1 if the mitigation site is in a different core area).97 As a result, the City needs to establish the mitigation ratio required for the Project, and it cannot assume that a ratio less than 3:1 would mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level unless it provides scientific analysis justifying that determination. Because the DEIR does not contain mitigation that adheres to the standards in the EACCS, and because the DEIR fails to ensure that the mitigation would have any benefit to the breeding population that remains in the Livermore-Amador Valley, Project impacts on the burrowing owl remain potentially significant. MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3 lacks critical details to ensure effective implementation of nesting bird avoidance measures. MM BIO-1.3 states: No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance may vary based on species and conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). This mitigation measure lacks crucial details necessary to ensure it will be effective in mitigating the impacts. Nest finding is labor intensive and can be extremely difficult due to the tendency of many species to construct well-concealed or camouflaged nests.98 As a result, most studies that involve locating bird nests employ a variety of search techniques. These include flushing an adult from the nest, watching parental behavior (e.g., carrying nest material or food), and systematically searching nesting substrates.99 In addition, breeding birds are known to be most active and detectable early in the morning, and there is a strong positive correlation between survey effort and abundance of nests detected. As a result, MM BIO-1.3 needs to specify the techniques that should be applied to nest surveys, the minimum level of effort required (i.e., hours per unit area), the search area, and the time of day surveys will be permitted. 96 Ibid. 97 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. p. 3-65 and Table 3-10. 98 DeSante DF, GR Geupel. 1987. Landbird productivity in central coastal California: the relationship to annual rainfall and a reproductive failure in 1986. Condor. 89:636-653. 99 Martin TE, GR Geupel. 1993. Nest-Monitoring Plots: Methods for Locating Nests and Monitoring Success. J. Field Ornithol. 64(4):507-519. 21 The DEIR suggests the Applicant’s biologist would be responsible for determining the size of any nest buffers. This is not a reliable mitigation strategy because construction contractors often pressure biologists into making decisions based on the contractor’s needs, rather than the needs of the bird. Many biologists succumb to this pressure, especially when they have been hired by the contractor (which is the case proposed in the DEIR). Moreover, the appropriate buffer size is dependent on several situational and species-specific factors. Most biologists (including excellent “birders”) have minimal knowledge of how these factors affect nesting success. Because the DEIR does not establish any minimum qualifications for the biologist, the City does not have the basis for assuming the biologist would be qualified to make decisions on the size of nest buffers. As a result, the DEIR must establish a mechanism that ensures the buffer size selected by the Applicant’s biologist is sufficient to prevent impacts to bird nests. The DEIR fails to provide evidence to support the statement that a nest buffer “is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors.” According to the DEIR, typical construction noise levels would range from approximately 75 dBA to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.100 Noise at these levels far exceeds the level that is deleterious to most breeding birds.101 For other projects the CDFW has recommended a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 500 feet for unlisted raptors, and 250 feet for other non-listed bird species.102 It has further recommended surveys to establish the behavioral baseline prior to construction, accompanied by continuous monitoring of nests after construction commences to detect any behavioral changes.103 It is my professional opinion that unless these guidelines are followed, the Project would have an unmitigated, significant impact on nesting birds. MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan MM BIO-3.1 requires the Applicant to acquire the “appropriate applicable permit(s)” for impacts to the site’s wetlands. It further requires the Applicant to prepare a wetland mitigation plan that is approved by the City and applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB). The DEIR concludes these actions would reduce Project impacts to wetlands to a less-than-significant level. There are two main reasons why the City’s conclusion is not supported by evidence: First, the DEIR impermissibly defers analysis and critical aspects of the wetlands mitigation strategy. Under CEQA, the City is obligated to identify the specific mitigation needed to mitigate Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. This includes the specific mitigation strategy (e.g., creation, restoration, or enhancement), mitigation ratio, monitoring program, and performance standards that will be implemented to ensure the Project would have less-than- 100 DEIR, p. 14-15. 101 Kaseloo PA, KO Tyson. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. Available at: <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_effect_on_wildlife/effects/effects.pdf>. See also Reijnen R, R Foppen, G Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:567-581. See also Ortega CP. 2012. Effects of Noise Pollution on Birds: A Brief Review of Our Knowledge. Ornithological Monographs 74:6-22. 102 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015 Jan 13. Letter to Merced County Planning and Community Development Department regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Wright Solar Project. p. 3. 103 Ibid. 22 significant impacts on the environment (i.e., independent of analysis conducted by the USACE and RWQCB designed to ensure compliance with state and federal wetland regulations). Contrary to what the DEIR suggests, the City cannot rely on deferred mitigation and the permitting requirements of other agencies to conclude impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. For example, in its comment letter to the lead agency for another project, the RWQCB recently stated: It is inappropriate to rely upon agency regulations for determining that impacts will be at insignificant levels…Water Board staff strongly discourages the County [of Kern] from attempting to defer to the later preparation of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permits to address the above issues. Such an approach would constitute deferment of mitigation. In the event that this occurs, the Water Board may require substantial modifications to the Project during the course of permitting review to ensure all water quality impacts [are] adequately mitigated. Water Board staff encourages the Project proponents to initiate detailed plans early in the process to allow for full and adequate review of the Project to address the above issues. This planning should be concurrent with the CEQA process as opposed to a sequential permitting approach.104 Second, compliance with regulatory permits provides no assurances that Project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be less-than-significant. To the contrary, numerous studies have demonstrated that many compensatory mitigation projects permitted under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act are not achieving the goal of “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions.105 For example, Ambrose and Lee (2004) concluded: “the Section 401 program has failed to achieve the goal of no net loss of habitat functions, values and services.”106 The National Academy of Sciences (2001) conducted a comprehensive review of compensatory wetland mitigation projects in the U.S. and found that the national “no net loss” goal is not being met because: (a) there is little monitoring of permit compliance, and (b) the permit conditions commonly used to establish mitigation success do not assure the establishment of wetland functions.107 Ambrose et al. (2007) derived similar results after examining 143 projects permitted by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Specifically, they concluded: (a) only 46% of the projects fully complied with all permit conditions, and (b) very few wetland mitigation projects were successful, especially from the ecological perspective.108 Several other studies have shown that the regulatory agencies are not ensuring the success of wetland 104 Kern County. 2011 Oct. Final Environmental Impact Report: RE Distributed Solar Projects, Chapter 7-4 (part 1), comment letter 8. 105 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. See also Environmental Law Institute. 2004. Measuring Mitigation: A Review of the Science for Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards. Report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency. 271 pp. See also Kihslinger RL. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects. 2008. National Wetlands Newsletter 30(2):14-16. 106 Ambrose RF, SF Lee. 2004. Guidance Document for Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board. p. 8. 107 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. 108 Ambrose RF, JL Callaway, SF Lee. 2007. An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Resources Control Board, 1991-2002. xxiv + 396 pp. 23 mitigation projects.109 Most notably, a 2005 report issued by the United States Government Accountability Office concluded that: “the Corps of Engineers does not have an effective oversight approach to ensure that compensatory mitigation is occurring.”110 For these reasons, MM BIO-3.1 does not ensure that the Project’s impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to less- than-significant levels. CONCLUSION Due to the issues discussed above, the Project would have significant impacts on sensitive biological resources. The DEIR that was prepared for the Project does not adequately disclose and analyze those impacts, nor does it provide the mitigation necessary to ensure significant impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels. Sincerely, Scott Cashen, M.S. Senior Biologist 109 Kihslinger RL. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects. 2008. National Wetlands Newsletter 30(2):14-16. See also Environmental Law Institute. 2004. Measuring Mitigation: A Review of the Science for Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards. Report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency. 271 pp. 110 United States Government Accountability Office. 2005. Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring. Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. GAO-05-898 Wetlands Protection. Available at: <http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/247675.pdf>. Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 1 Scott Cashen, M.S. Senior Biologist / Forest Ecologist 3264 Hudson Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94597. (925) 256-9185. scottcashen@gmail.com Scott Cashen has 20 years of professional experience in natural resources management. During that time he has worked as a field biologist, forester, environmental consultant, and instructor of Wildlife Management. Mr. Cashen currently operates an independent consulting business that focuses on CEQA/NEPA compliance issues, endangered species, scientific field studies, and other topics that require a high level of scientific expertise. Mr. Cashen has knowledge and experience with many taxa, biological resource issues, and environmental regulations. This knowledge and experience has made him a highly sought after biological resources expert. To date, he has been retained as a biological resources expert for over 40 projects. Mr. Cashen’s role in this capacity has encompassed all stages of the environmental review process, from initial document review through litigation support and expert witness testimony. Mr. Cashen is a recognized expert on the environmental impacts of renewable energy development. He has been involved in the environmental review process for 28 renewable energy projects, and he has been a biological resources expert for more of California’s solar energy projects than any other private consultant. In 2010, Mr. Cashen testified on 5 of the Department of the Interior’s “Top 6 Fast-tracked Solar Projects” and his testimony influenced the outcome of each of these projects. Mr. Cashen is a versatile scientist capable of addressing numerous aspects of natural resource management simultaneously. Because of Mr. Cashen’s expertise in both forestry and biology, Calfire had him prepare the biological resource assessments for all of its fuels treatment projects in Riverside and San Diego Counties following the 2003 Cedar Fire. Mr. Cashen has led field studies on several special-status species, including plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Mr. Cashen has been the technical editor of several resource management documents, and his strong scientific writing skills have enabled him to secure grant funding for several clients. AREAS OF EXPERTISE ¥ CEQA, NEPA, and Endangered Species Act compliance issues ¥ Comprehensive biological resource assessments ¥ Endangered species management ¥ Renewable energy ¥ Forest fuels reduction and timber harvesting ¥ Scientific field studies, grant writing and technical editing EDUCATION M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science - The Pennsylvania State University (1998) B.S. Resource Management - The University of California, Berkeley (1992) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 2 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Litigation Support / Expert Witness As a biological resources expert, Mr. Cashen reviews CEQA/NEPA documents and provides his client(s) with an assessment of biological resource issues. He then prepares written comments on the scientific and legal adequacy of the project’s environmental documents (e.g., EIR). For projects requiring California Energy Commission (CEC) approval, Mr. Cashen has submitted written testimony (opening and rebuttal) in conjunction with oral testimony before the CEC. Mr. Cashen can lead field studies to generate evidence for legal testimony, and he can incorporate testimony from his deep network of species-specific experts. Mr. Cashen’s clients have included law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Solar Energy Facilities Geothermal Energy Facilities ¥ Abengoa Mojave Solar Project ¥ East Brawley Geothermal Development¥ Avenal Energy Power Plant ¥ Mammoth Pacific 1 Replacement Facility¥ Beacon Solar Energy Project ¥ Western GeoPower Plant and Steamfield¥ Blythe Solar Power Project Wind Energy Facilities ¥ Calico Solar Project ¥ Catalina Renewable Energy Project ¥ Calipatria Solar Farm II ¥ Ocotillo Express Wind Energy Project¥ Carrizo Energy Solar Farm ¥ San Diego County Wind Ordinance ¥ Catalina Renewable Energy Project ¥ Tres Vaqueros Repowering Project ¥ Fink Road Solar Farm ¥ Vasco Winds Relicensing Project ¥ Genesis Solar Energy Project Biomass Facilities ¥ Heber Solar Energy Facility ¥ Tracy Green Energy Project ¥ Imperial Valley Solar Project Development Projects ¥ Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System ¥ Alves Ranch ¥ Maricopa Sun Solar Complex ¥ Aviano ¥ Mt. Signal and Calexico Solar Projects ¥ Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan ¥ San Joaquin Solar I & II ¥ Columbus Salame ¥ Solar Gen II Projects ¥ Concord Naval Weapons Station ¥ SR Solis Oro Loma ¥ Faria Annexation ¥ Vestal Solar Facilities ¥ Live Oak Master Plan ¥ Victorville 2 Power Project ¥ Napa Pipe ¥ Roddy Ranch ¥ Rollingwood ¥ Sprint-Nextel Tower Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 3 Project Management Mr. Cashen has managed several large-scale wildlife, forestry, and natural resource management projects. Many of these projects have required hiring and training field crews, coordinating with other professionals, and communicating with project stakeholders. Mr. Cashen’s experience in study design, data collection, and scientific writing make him an effective project manager, and his background in several different natural resource disciplines enable him to address the many facets of contemporary land management in a cost-effective manner. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Wildlife Studies • Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Resource Use and Behavior Study: (CA State Parks) • “KV” Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Inventory: (USFS, Plumas NF) • Amphibian Inventory Project: (USFS, Plumas NF) • San Mateo Creek Steelhead Restoration Project: (Trout Unlimited and CA Coastal Conservancy, Orange County) • Delta Meadows State Park Special-status Species Inventory: (CA State Parks, Locke) Natural Resources Management • Mather Lake Resource Management Study and Plan – (Sacramento County) • Placer County Vernal Pool Study – (Placer County) • Weidemann Ranch Mitigation Project – (Toll Brothers, Inc., San Ramon) • Ion Communities Biological Resource Assessments – (Ion Communities, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) • Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment – (The Wyro Company, Rio Vista) Forestry • Forest Health Improvement Projects – (CalFire, SD and Riverside Counties) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (SDG&E, San Diego Co.) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (San Diego County/NRCS) • Hillslope Monitoring Project – (CalFire, throughout California) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 4 Biological Resources Mr. Cashen has a diverse background with biological resources. He has conducted comprehensive biological resource assessments, habitat evaluations, species inventories, and scientific peer review. Mr. Cashen has led investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow- legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and forest carnivores. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Avian ¥ Study design and Lead Investigator - Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory (CA State Parks: Locke) ¥ Study design and lead bird surveyor - Placer County Vernal Pool Study (Placer County: throughout Placer County) ¥ Surveyor - Willow flycatcher habitat mapping (USFS: Plumas NF) ¥ Independent surveyor - Tolay Creek, Cullinan Ranch, and Guadacanal Village restoration projects (Ducks Unlimited/USGS: San Pablo Bay) ¥ Study design and Lead Investigator - Bird use of restored wetlands research (Pennsylvania Game Commission: throughout Pennsylvania) ¥ Study design and surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird species at a 400-acre site in Napa County (HCV Associates: Napa) ¥ Surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird abundance following diesel spill (LFR Levine-Fricke: Suisun Bay) ¥ Study design and lead bird surveyor - Green Valley Creek Riparian Restoration Site (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA) ¥ Surveyor - Burrowing owl relocation and monitoring (US Navy: Dixon, CA) ¥ Surveyor - Pre-construction raptor and burrowing owl surveys (various clients and locations) ¥ Surveyor - Backcountry bird inventory (National Park Service: Eagle, Alaska) ¥ Lead surveyor - Tidal salt marsh bird surveys (Point Reyes Bird Observatory: throughout Bay Area) ¥ Surveyor – Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (various clients and locations) Amphibian ¥ Crew Leader - Red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 5 ¥ Surveyor - Foothill yellow-legged frog surveys (PG&E: North Fork Feather River) ¥ Surveyor - Mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (El Dorado Irrigation District: Desolation Wilderness) ¥ Crew Leader - Bullfrog eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Fish and Aquatic Resources ¥ Surveyor - Hardhead minnow and other fish surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) ¥ Surveyor - Weber Creek aquatic habitat mapping (El Dorado Irrigation District: Placerville, CA) ¥ Surveyor - Green Valley Creek aquatic habitat mapping (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA) ¥ GPS Specialist - Salmonid spawning habitat mapping (CDFG: Sacramento River) ¥ Surveyor - Fish composition and abundance study (PG&E: Upper North Fork Feather River and Lake Almanor) ¥ Crew Leader - Surveys of steelhead abundance and habitat use (CA Coastal Conservancy: Gualala River estuary) ¥ Crew Leader - Exotic species identification and eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Mammals ¥ Principal Investigator – Peninsular bighorn sheep resource use and behavior study (California State Parks: Freeman Properties) ¥ Scientific Advisor –Study on red panda occupancy and abundance in eastern Nepal (The Red Panda Network: CA and Nepal) ¥ Surveyor - Forest carnivore surveys (University of CA: Tahoe NF) ¥ Surveyor - Relocation and monitoring of salt marsh harvest mice and other small mammals (US Navy: Skagg’s Island, CA) ¥ Surveyor – Surveys for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Relocation of woodrat houses (Touré Associates: Prunedale) Natural Resource Investigations / Multiple Species Studies ¥ Scientific Review Team Member – Member of the science review team assessing the effectiveness of the US Forest Service’s implementation of the Herger- Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act. ¥ Lead Consultant - Baseline biological resource assessments and habitat mapping for CDF management units (CDF: San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 6 ¥ Biological Resources Expert – Peer review of CEQA/NEPA documents (Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardoza: California) ¥ Lead Consultant - Pre- and post-harvest biological resource assessments of tree removal sites (SDG&E: San Diego County) ¥ Crew Leader - T&E species habitat evaluations for Biological Assessment in support of a steelhead restoration plan (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) ¥ Lead Investigator - Resource Management Study and Plan for Mather Lake Regional Park (County of Sacramento: Sacramento, CA) ¥ Lead Investigator - Biological Resources Assessment for 1,070-acre Alfaro Ranch property (Yuba County, CA) ¥ Lead Investigator - Wildlife Strike Hazard Management Plan (HCV Associates: Napa) ¥ Lead Investigator - Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment (The Wyro Company: Rio Vista, CA) ¥ Lead Investigator – Ion Communities project sites (Ion Communities: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) ¥ Surveyor – Tahoe Pilot Project: Validation of California’s Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model (University of California: Tahoe NF) Forestry Mr. Cashen has five years of experience working as a consulting forester on projects throughout California. Mr. Cashen has consulted with landowners and timber operators on forest management practices; and he has worked on a variety of forestry tasks including selective tree marking, forest inventory, harvest layout, erosion control, and supervision of logging operations. Mr. Cashen’s experience with many different natural resources enable him to provide a holistic approach to forest management, rather than just management of timber resources. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE ¥ Lead Consultant - CalFire fuels treatment projects (SD and Riverside Counties) ¥ Lead Consultant and supervisor of harvest activities – San Diego Gas and Electric Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project (San Diego) ¥ Crew Leader - Hillslope Monitoring Program (CalFire: throughout California) ¥ Consulting Forester – Forest inventories and timber harvest projects (various clients throughout California) Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 7 Grant Writing and Technical Editing Mr. Cashen has prepared and submitted over 50 proposals and grant applications. Many of the projects listed herein were acquired through proposals he wrote. Mr. Cashen’s clients and colleagues have recognized his strong scientific writing skills and ability to generate technically superior proposal packages. Consequently, he routinely prepares funding applications and conducts technical editing for various clients. PERMITS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep CA Department of Fish and Game Scientific Collecting Permit PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS / ASSOCIATIONS The Wildlife Society (Conservation Affairs Committee member) Cal Alumni Foresters Mt. Diablo Audubon Society OTHER AFFILIATIONS Scientific Advisor and Grant Writer – The Red Panda Network Scientific Advisor – Mt. Diablo Audubon Society Grant Writer – American Conservation Experience Scientific Advisor and Land Committee Member – Save Mt. Diablo TEACHING EXPERIENCE Instructor: Wildlife Management - The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 Teaching Assistant: Ornithology - The Pennsylvania State University, 1996-1997 2 3 4 At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-2 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment Letter #1: California Department of Transportation, District 4 Response to Comment 1-1: Multimodal Planning A discussion of secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists from the proposed project has been added to the Draft EIR in Sections 17.5.5-17.5.8 for relevant mitigation measures. No new significant impacts have been identified. Regarding the proposed project parking supply, the request is to provide parking based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except for the multi-family apartments in PA-2b. Adequacy of parking supply is not an environmental impact under CEQA. A shared parking analysis was conducted to identify possible ways to reduce parking for the proposed commercial uses north and south of Dublin Boulevard. The study concluded that a majority of the commercial uses have similar peak parking demand throughout the day and therefore a parking reduction was not recommended. The proposed parking for the commercial uses would meet City zoning requirements. A parking occupancy study was also prepared for the residential units. The project applicant is proposing fewer parking spaces (1.75 parking spaces/unit) than required by the City of Dublin Municipal Code (2.0 parking spaces/unit). The parking occupancy study conducted a case study analysis of an existing 260-unit residential apartment (88 at Alhambra Place), which is located adjacent to a commercial development, with parking spaces designated for residents, residential guests, and commercial patrons, similar to the proposed At Dublin project. The parking occupancy study concluded that based on the observed peak parking demand of 1.04 occupied residential tenant parking spaces/occupied unit at the 88 at Alhambra Place apartments, the applicant proposed rate of 1.60 residential tenant parking spaces/unit for At Dublin exceeds the estimated parking demand. Regarding the recommendation to include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, a new MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program has been added to the EIR help reduce traffic impacts, which would also reduce impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The applicant also has agreed to the TDM mitigation measure. Response to Comment 1-2: Transportation Impact Fees For mitigation measures that include a fair share payment, the project’s proportionate percentage was identified in Sections 17.5.5-17.5.8 for relevant mitigation measures and the timing of the payment has been identified in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. These mitigation measures are consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigating significant impacts. The proposed project would not generate any significant impacts to the pedestrian and bicycle network. The project is proposing to add pedestrian walkways and sidewalks throughout the project site and along all street frontages including, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive where there are existing gaps to the City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-3 Final EIR 10/23/18 pedestrian network. The project is also proposing to add buffered bicycle lanes along Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard to close the existing gaps in the bicycle network. These improvements would address the project’s added demand to the pedestrian and bicycle network. In addition, the project would not cause a significant impact on transit services. The City of Dublin has implemented a transit signal priority system along Dublin Boulevard and queue jump lanes at some intersections along Dublin Boulevard. These improvements minimize the impacts to transit on the City of Dublin roadways. The project would also pay its fair share towards the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) regional transportation impact fees. These fees would address the project’s regional impacts. Response to Comment 1-3: Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Planning Area Prior to completion of field work for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), maps and records on file at the California Archaeological Inventory located at Sonoma State University were checked for evidence of recorded historic and prehistoric resources inside the GPA planning area, and to determine which areas had been subject to prior archaeological field inspections. At least ten reports were found of previous archaeological surveys inside the planning area. Only one of these surveys revealed evidence of aboriginal uses on the lands of Chang Su-O-Lin, which is not on the project site. As part of the EDSP EIR, a field inspection of the entire planning area was conducted in July 1988. The survey strategy employed was a mixed general and intuitive field reconnaissance. A general field reconnaissance was employed in areas considered least likely to contain either prehistoric or historic materials. These consisted of the steeper hillsides found at the center and eastern edges of the site where the degree of slope, exposure to wind and lack of nearby water made prehistoric or historic use highly unlikely. A number of these areas were inspected by walking transects of 200 feet apart whenever slope provided or were surveyed en route to areas of more sensitivity. All the upper slopes were inspected for evidence of usage of exposed rock, but this effort was abandoned when it was discovered that little to no exposed rock existed. A mixed general and intensive survey strategy was employed in other areas more likely to reveal historic or prehistoric use. These areas included the drainages throughout the planning area, and all land on the southern slope running from the 1-580 corridor past the 500-foot contour. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center was also surveyed except for its western portion which had restricted access at the time. The field surveys identified a total of six prehistoric locations which contain cultural materials, either associated with what may be midden, or which are not apparently associated with any visible midden deposit. Additionally, there are four locations along the southern and eastern flanks of the Chang Su-0-Lin property where isolated probable ground stone implements were discovered in 1985. None of the prehistoric locations were located within the At Dublin project site. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-4 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 At Dublin Project Site The historic-period resources identified within the project site were formally evaluated for CRHR-eligibility and found to be ineligible under CEQA. The project site does not qualify as unique archaeological resources. Furthermore, the project site is not 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). The City sent a letter to ten tribes under SB18 and one under AB52 and no response for consultation were received. As described in MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction, if buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR determined that implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction would reduce impacts to a level of less-than-significant level. Response to Comment 1-4: Encroachment Permit The project will comply with all applicable legal requirements for the issuance of any encroachment permit from Caltrans. Response to Comment 1-5: Lead Agency and Review Status Comment noted. The Draft EIR was submitted to thirty-three (33) state, regional and local agencies including MTC, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and the Alameda County Transportation Commission for review and comment. Response to Comment Letter #2: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Response to Comment 2-1: Biological Resources – Wetland Mitigation Plan As noted, CEQA requires that a project's potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of the CEQA document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed mitigation will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4). Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan requires that prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB). City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-5 Final EIR 10/23/18 Furthermore, the mitigation identifies specific performance criteria that the project applicant will need to adhere to when preparing the wetland mitigation plan. This includes establishing suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. To provide further clarity with respect to what will be required in the preparation of the wetland mitigation plan, MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan has been revised, as shown below in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR. Since the mitigation measures sets forth all the standards the wetlands mitigation plan must meet, the preparation of a detailed wetland mitigation plan for analysis in the EIR is not required under CEQA. Response to Comment 2-2: Biological Resources – Use of the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a guidance document intended to provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development studies. The City of Dublin adopted the EACCS as its guidance document for public projects and uses the document to provide input for managing biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and environmental planning. For privately sponsored development projects such as this project, proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the document is not mandatory. Response to Comment 2-3: Hydrology & Water Quality – Post-construction Stormwater Management The Revised Stormwater Management Plan for Dublin Ranch, City of Dublin, CA prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc in collaboration with MacKay & Somps dated March 2003, included disconnected roof downspouts as a specific site design feature that can reduce the impacts of impervious surfaces on peak flows. All Parcels in PA-2 and PA-3 will include disconnected roof downspouts as well as incorporate additional site design measures such as creating self- retaining areas in larger landscape spaces, using landscape as a drainage feature, and planting interceptor trees to slow and disperse stormwater flow prior to entering the City’s storm drain system. On-site treatment will include bioretention areas with raised subdrains allowing for infiltration into the subsoil. These low impact development practices will help mitigate peak flows that contribute to creek hydromodification, prior to discharging flows into the Dublin Ranch Regional Stormwater Pond. In addition, Storm capture underground storage vaults are providing approximately 41,000 cubic feet of storage in PA-1 and PA-4 combined. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-6 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment Letter #3: Alameda County Transportation Commission Response to Comment 3-1: Receipt of the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting The City of Dublin has updated ACTC’s contact information to its project notification list and the agency received the notice of the availability of the Draft EIR, Final EIR and public meetings. Response to Comment 3-2: Transportation Impact Fees Mitigation Measure TR-4.1 requires the project applicant to pay its fair share of the TVTC regional transportation impact fees that will assist in improvements to the I-680/I-580 interchange and roadway widening along State Route 84. The I-680/I-580 interchange improvement project will help to alleviate congestion on westbound I-580 by adding additional capacity on the westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 connector loop. The State Route 84 widening project from Pigeon Pass to I-680 should help to provide additional capacity on State Route 84 and divert more traffic from I-580 between I-680 and State Route 84. The TVTC regional transportation impact fees are calculated based on the average peak hour vehicle trips. More details on the fee can be found on the Tri-Valley Transportation Council website. These additional details have been incorporated into the discussion of Impact TR-4, as shown in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 3-3: Alameda CTC Analysis The I-580 express lanes were not analyzed because these facilities include dynamic pricing that would alter vehicle demand. Any increase in the demand for this facility by the project would be counterbalanced by an increase in pricing to maintain the same demand before and after the project is built. Therefore, depending on how the dynamic pricing system is programmed, the demand and operations of the express lanes will likely be managed to operate acceptably at all times. Since the demand for the Express Lanes would remain the same before and after the project due to dynamic pricing, demand changes from the project only affect the general- purpose lanes and these impacts and mitigations are addressed in the DEIR. SR-84 was not analyzed because it is not anticipated that the proposed project would send trips to SR-84. SR-84 is a connector for vehicles traveling between I-680 south of Pleasanton and I- 580 east of Livermore. The vehicle trips that would travel to these destinations would not use SR-84. Therefore, this project would not impact SR-84. Response to Comment 3-4: Transit Service Analysis There is no specific CEQA criteria (e.g. level of service) or City/agency policy that quantifiably addresses transit delay. The City of Dublin significance criteria considers transit impacts for developments that are inaccessible to transit riders or would generate transit demand that cannot be met by existing or planned transit in the area. However, based on a qualitative analysis as described in the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that the transit service operating on the adjacent roadway network to the project would not be significantly impacted. The City of City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-7 Final EIR 10/23/18 Dublin has implemented a transit signal priority system along Dublin Boulevard and queue jump ability at some of the key intersections along Dublin Boulevard. These improvements have improved transit service and reduced transit delays on the City of Dublin roadways. For transit routes on I-580, transit buses utilize the I-580 express lanes, which utilize dynamic pricing to offset additional demand. Transit users associated with the proposed project would use these existing transit services which have sufficient capacity and no additional buses or transit facilities would be required. Therefore, there would be no transit service impacts. Response to Comment 3-5: Transportation Demand Management Program A Transportation Demand Program has been added to the EIR (MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program), as described in Response to Comment 1-1, and shown in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR. The TDM program describes how the program will be funded and implemented. Response to Comment 3-6- Bicycle Lanes Tassajara Road between the I-580 WB ramps and the I-580 EB ramps is under the City of Pleasanton’s jurisdictional boundary and is under Caltrans Right of Way. The City of Dublin has no control over this area. Therefore, any proposed improvements would need to be coordinated with the City of Pleasanton, Caltrans, and the City of Dublin. The proposed project does not result in impacts on the proposed bicycle lane along Tassajara Road between I-580 WB ramps and I-580 EB Ramps. Proposed bicycle lanes on roadways adjacent to the project would connect to the City of Dublin bicycle network and the Tassajara Road I-580 overcrossing, as well as other I-580 overcrossings. Response to Comment 3-7- Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impacts Additional bicycle and pedestrian safety discussion has been included in Draft EIR Section 17.5.5 Proposed Project Driveways and Intersections. The new traffic signal on Dublin Boulevard would be required to be consistent with the City of Dublin’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Guidelines to promote a safe design for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian features would include crosswalks on all legs of the intersection, as well as fully Accessible Signal features for disabled individuals as per the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices – California edition. Bicycle features may include colored pavement for the buffered bicycle lane on all approaches to emphasize the bicycle right-of-way as there are expected to be a high volume of turning vehicles crossing the bicycle lane to enter the project site. Response to Comment Letter #4: Dublin San Ramon Services District Response to Comment 4-1: Utilities – Concurrence with the Water Supply Assessment The agency notes that a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was performed which determined that adequate water supply is available for this project and the agency concurs with the conclusions as stated in the Draft EIR. Comment noted. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-8 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment Letter #5: City of Pleasanton Response to Comment 5-1: Pleasanton LOS Policy Analysis of the intersection of El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard was revised in the EIR, consistent with the City of Pleasanton LOS policies. This revision did not change the results of the analysis because the City of Pleasanton and the City of Livermore have the same LOS D threshold for this intersection. Response to Comment 5-2- Study Intersections, Including Gateway Intersections Study Intersections As part of the scoping phase and prior to initiating the traffic analysis, the City of Dublin submitted a list of proposed traffic study intersections to be analyzed for the project to the City of Pleasanton. The City of Pleasanton responded by recommending the following additional six intersections to the traffic analysis: 1) Fallon Road at I-580 WB Ramps, 2) Fallon Road at I-580 EB Ramps, 3) El Charro Road at Stoneridge Drive/E Jack London Boulevard, 4) Hacienda Drive at I-580 WB ramps, 5) Hacienda Drive at I-580 EB Ramps, and 6) Hacienda Drive at Owens Drive. The City of Dublin included these six recommended intersections in the traffic analysis for the Draft EIR. Gateway Intersections Regarding the “gateway” condition, the City of Pleasanton General Plan states that a “gateway” intersection is exempt from the City’s LOS D threshold (Pleasanton General Plan Circulation Element Policy 5, Program 5.1.) The Circulation Element explains the reason behind this exemption as follows: “All traffic entering and leaving the Pleasanton circulation network flows through gateway intersections (listed in Table 3-4). These intersections are also key arrival points into the city where street design, buildings, and landscaping are used to create an inviting entrance into Pleasanton. These locations have been designed to accommodate the Pleasanton-based traffic but have experienced increased volumes of cut-through traffic that impact the level of service. Mitigation measures can be used to improve level of service. However, the elimination of landscaping and significant road widening may result in a loss of visual character and pedestrian convenience at the intersections. Improvement also may encourage additional cut-through traffic, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the intersection improvements and reducing the level of service downstream of these intersections.” (page 3-6 and 3-8) Consistent with this policy, the level of service tables and figures in the Circulation Element (Table 3-7 and Figure 3-6) note that the gateway intersection are exempt from LOS. The Circulation Element states that: City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-9 Final EIR 10/23/18 “At buildout, except for exempted Downtown and gateway intersections, the entire city would operate at level of service D or better with all improvement measures implemented, as detailed in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-7”. (page 3-12) The Draft EIR for the City of Pleasanton General Plan analyzed the traffic impacts associated with the exemption policy which would result in gateway intersection operating below LOS D. It should also be noted that the Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Tri-Valley Transportation Council, September 2017) states as part of their Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) is to maintain an intersection LOS of E or better. However, in local jurisdictions where LOS standards for downtown areas have been established for Routes of Regional Significance, the LOS in the adopted General Plan shall govern (pages 13-14). The City of Pleasanton uses their own travel demand forecast model that is different from that used in the At Dublin EIR, which was based on the Countywide traffic model. The City of Pleasanton’s model uses forecasted Cumulative volumes based on existing traffic, added traffic from approved and pending developments, and planned buildout development under their current General Plan. For adjacent jurisdictions including the City of Dublin, the City of Pleasanton’s traffic model assumes land uses as identified in their respective general plans. As described in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis (March 2015), all gateway intersections analyzed in the At Dublin Draft EIR would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under cumulative (2040) conditions. Furthermore, given the fact that the At Dublin project includes land uses that would generate less traffic than those assumed in the City of Dublin’s General Plan and the City of Pleasanton’s travel demand forecast model, forecasted cumulative traffic volumes as these intersections would be even less. Therefore, when using the City of Pleasanton travel demand forecast model for City of Pleasanton’s gateway intersections, it would be highly unlikely that the proposed At Dublin project would result in any “gateway” intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS using the City of Pleasanton travel demand forecast model. In conclusion, because the General Plan’s analysis of future traffic conditions states that gateway intersections are exempt from the LOS D threshold, and traffic volumes for these gateway intersections would operate at an accept LOS under the cumulative plus project level using the City of Pleasanton’s traffic model, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary. This interpretation is also consistent with regional transportation policies as identified by the Tri- Valley Transportation Council. Response to Comment 5-3: Project Trip Generation The trip generation for the proposed project does not include a trip credit for the previous uses assumed on the project site. Therefore, the trips shown on Figure 17-12c are solely new trips. In reference to the project generating 842 fewer trips than the Existing General Plan, that was strictly a comparison of the proposed project to the Existing General Plan, showing that the At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-10 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 proposed project is less intense than the approved General Plan uses. However, for traffic impact analysis purposes, the impacts of the proposed project were determined based on a future baseline with no vehicle trips generated from the project site. Response to Comment 5-4: Freeway Ramp Metering Rates The City of Dublin will work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to modify the ramp metering rates as needed. The language for the freeway ramp mitigations has been revised to add the City of Pleasanton as part of the coordination with the City of Dublin and Caltrans. These revisions are included in Mitigation Measure TR-4.2 and Mitigation Measure TR-7.1. Response to Comment 5-5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements See Response to Comment 3-6. Response to Comment Letter #6: Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No. 304 Response to Comment 6-1: Draft EIR Adequacy The commenter makes general comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Without specific comments, no specific response cannot be provided. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR complies with all CEQA requirements and recirculation is not required. Response to Comment Letter #7: Dublin Residents for Responsible Development Response to Comment 7-1: Summary of CEQA Concerns The commenter summarizes their CEQA concerns which are discussed in greater detail in the following pages of their letter. The commenter’s specific comments, including those of SWAPE and Mr. Cashen, which were attached as exhibits to the letter, are addressed in Response to Comment 7-5 through Response to Comment 7-35. Response to Comment 7-2: Statement of Interest The commenter summarizes the parties that are contributors to the comment letter. No response is necessary. Response to Comment 7-3: Summary of CEQA Concerns See Response to Comment 7-1. With regard to the statement on CEQA legal requirements, the law speaks for itself and no response is required. Response to Comment 7-4: Air Quality – General This comment makes general statements regarding Draft EIR conclusions and mitigation measures and summarizes later more specific comments. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-5 through 7-18 for responses to specific comments. City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-11 Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment 7-5: Air Quality – Project Emissions The comment suggests that the theater, specialty restaurants, and general retail uses should be modeled separately in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The Draft EIR modeled these uses consistent with the project plan set, project description, and the project traffic study. While the emissions modeling in the Draft EIR did not input specific land use categories for the theater and restaurants, the overall building square footages and total trip generation accurately represent the project. The emissions calculated by CalEEMod are primarily based on the building area of land uses and the daily trip generation. These criteria in the CalEEMod run are consistent with the corresponding project information to yield accurate results. Therefore, this perceived discrepancy would have a nominal (if any) effect on the modeled emissions results. It would not change any of the significance conclusions on air quality impacts in the Draft EIR. The comment incorrectly claims that the project’s proposed land uses are unaccounted for and that emissions are greatly underestimated. It should be noted that the modeling conducted by the commenter’s consultant overstate the proposed building square footage and the daily trip generation. For example, the commenter’s consultant modeled 4,500 square feet of additional retail uses beyond what is actually proposed by the project, and also modeled 22,622 daily vehicle trips, which is 3,295 daily trips more than the 19,327 trips identified in the project traffic study. Furthermore, the commenter’s modeling is also overstated as it does not consider project design features such as the proposed mix of uses and development density. As such, the commenter uses inaccurate and overstated modeling to attempt inflate emissions. The comment also incorrectly claims that the Draft EIR incorrectly applies mitigation measures prior to disclosing construction emissions. Table 6-7 shows project construction emissions with and without mitigation. Draft EIR Table 6-8 shows project buildout operational emissions without mitigation. Draft EIR Table 6-9 clearly shows that despite the implementation of mitigation measures, operational emissions would exceed BAAQMD Thresholds for ROG and NOx. Additionally, applying Tier 4 mitigation to welders represents a two pound per day difference in NOX emissions. This represents approximately 0.3 percent and 1 percent of the project’s maximum unmitigated and mitigated emissions, respectively. The application of Tier 4 mitigation to welders in CalEEMod does not substantially alter the emissions modeling conducted for the project. The Draft EIR conclusion on impacts and required mitigation would not change if the analysis was changed to remove the application of Tier 4 mitigation to welders. This conclusion is based on a model run that removed the application of the Tier 4 mitigation to welders. The comment makes the claim that equipment meeting Tier 4 standards is the hardest equipment to procure. This is an incorrect statement. This statement is based on a California Industry Air Quality Coalition White Paper from 2010. Tier 4 equipment was phased in over the period of 2008 to 2015. Beginning in 2015, all new off-road engines sold in the United States are required to be Tier 4-compliant and most larger construction firms already meet or exceed At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-12 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 the Tier 4 minimum requirement. Tier 4 equipment is routinely used at construction sites throughout California. Numerous CEQA documents have relied on mitigation for construction equipment to meet Tier 4 emission standards to reduce air quality impacts to a less-than- significant level. In addition, MM AQ-2.2 in the Final EIR is clarified to specify that Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards are required. The volume of earthwork necessary for project construction was revised from 50,000 cubic yards to 96,600 cubic yards over the course of preparation of the Draft EIR. The updated earthwork volumes were modeled, and the associated emissions are reported in the Draft EIR. However, the CalEEMod outputs provided in Appendix B inadvertently reflect the original earthwork volume. It should be noted that due to the length of construction the increase in earthwork only resulted in approximately 0.5 pounds of additional NOX emissions per day during construction. The changes in the other pollutants were nominal (i.e., less than 0.5 pounds per day). The minor discrepancy has been corrected in the Final EIR, which includes the latest CalEEMod outputs. There are no changes to the magnitude of impacts, mitigation measures, or conclusions in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment 7-6: Air Quality Construction Emissions Impacts The modeling conducted by the commenter’s consultant overstate the proposed building square footage and the daily trip generation and does not consider project design features such as the proposed mix of uses and development density (refer to Response to Comment 7-5, above). The commenter uses inaccurate and overstated modeling to attempt inflate emissions. Even with the commenter’s changes to the analysis, the impacts, mitigation, and conclusions on significance for AQ impacts in Draft EIR would not change because the air quality thresholds of significance for construction would not be exceeded, and therefore the level of significance would not change. Overall, this comment refers to previous comments and does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or note a specific issue or comment related to the Draft EIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is necessary. See Response to Comment 7-1. Response to Comment 7-7: Air Quality – Impacts The construction mitigation measures suggested in the comment are already required in the Draft EIR (e.g., emissions controls for diesel engines and repowering of older equipment is addressed in MM AQ-2.2, which requires Tier 4 construction equipment) or are duplicative. The vehicle inventory system is required by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices”. Furthermore, mitigation measures are considered feasible and required if they would reduce an impact that is significant and unavoidable. The Draft EIR determined that impacts associated with ROG and NOX would be significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that GHG emissions were determined to be less than significant with no mitigation required. Therefore, findings on infeasibility of GHG mitigation measures proposed by the commenter is not required for GHG impacts. Please also refer to Response to Comment 7-11 on project GHG reduction measures. The following table discusses each of the commenter’s suggested mitigation measures. As City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-13 Final EIR 10/23/18 indicated below, the project would implement most of the measures identified in the comment. The project is consistent with all applicable measures. Require implementation of diesel control measures recommended by the Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC), including using emission control technology and retrofitting diesel generators on site to reduce PM emissions and fueling equipment with ultra- low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend. Consistent. The BAAQMD requires that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. The use of equipment meeting CARB Tier 4 emissions standards is required per Draft EIR Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2.2. The BAAQMD Best Available Control Technology is consistent with the NEDC controls. Repower or replace older construction equipment engines. Use electric and/or hybrid construction equipment. Consistent. Refer above. Additionally, equipment less than 50 horsepower would comply. Also, the BAAQMD is administering more than $11 million in annual Carl Moyer Program funding available for projects throughout the Bay Area. This funding is available for the purchase of hybrid, zero- and near-zero-emissions equipment, and for fueling and charging infrastructure as part of alternative-fuel or battery-electric project types. Implement a construction vehicle inventory tracking system to ensure compliances with construction mitigation measures. Consistent. The project would comply with this measure through BAAQMD enforcement and the City’s monitoring and inspection process and well as the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Implement the "Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices," that are recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and is aimed at achieving NOX and PM reductions. The SMAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices include the following: Consistent. As noted above, the use of equipment meeting CARB Tier 4 emissions standards is required per Draft EIR Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2.2. Implementation of this measure would require the project to develop a plan demonstrating that the off- road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-14 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 1. The project representative shall submit to the lead agency a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman. This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment. The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. 2. The project representative shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency demonstrating that the heavy- duty off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average. This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low- emission diesel products, alternative fuels, reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low- emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. Consistent with BAAQMD requirements and in order to comply with Draft EIR Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2.2, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators would be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. The BAAQMD Best Available Control Technology is identical to the SMAQMD requirements that require reductions in NOX and particulate matter emissions (20 and 45 percent, respectively) below the CARB fleet average. All contractors would be required to use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Diesel powered construction equipment idling time would be required to be reduced to two minutes. Additionally, the opacity requirements are required in BAAQMD Regulation 6 (Particulate Matter), Rule 1 (General Requirements). City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-15 Final EIR 10/23/18 engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The District’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction. 3. The project representative shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel- powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately. Non-compliant equipment will be documented, and a summary provided to the lead agency and District monthly. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly. A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. Use passive solar design, including orient buildings and incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar, heating during cool seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during hot seasons. Consistent. Cool roofs would not reduce a significant and unavoidable impact and findings on infeasibility of measures are not required. Nevertheless, cool roof materials are planned for the commercial buildings and the multi-family apartments. The BAAQMD also recommends planting shade trees within 40 feet of the south side or within 60 feet of the west sides of properties. The planting of shade trees as defined by BAAQMD is met for most of the At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-16 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 site, inclusive of shading from existing and proposed buildings. A very small portion (less than 5%) area cannot comply with BAAQMD requirements due to site layout, available space, and project density goals. Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. Consistent. This would be implemented per City safety and security guidelines. Develop and follow a "green streets guide" that requires use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt; installation of permeable pavement to allow for storm water infiltration; and use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection. Consistent. These measures would not reduce a significant and unavoidable impact and findings on infeasibility of measures are not required. However, the project does minimize concrete and maximize the use of groundcover. The project has incorporated weather/ moisture sensing irrigation systems, low flow volume irrigation (subsurface drip and individual tree bubblers), hydro-zone specific planting/irrigation layouts, recycled water for most of the landscaping. Additionally, the landscape plan has incorporated a significant amount of areas with a drought tolerant plant palette. The BAAQMD also recommends implementing water-sensitive urban design practices in new construction. Implement project design features such as: Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight, install high-efficiency HVAC with hot-gas reheat and provide education on energy efficiency to residents and customers. Consistent. Shading HVAC equipment from direct sunlight and the use of high efficiency HVAC would not reduce a significant and unavoidable impact and findings on infeasibility of measures are not required. These measures would not quantifiably reduce emissions. The commercial development incorporates the following features: tankless water heaters, solar panels, HVAC duct sealing, interior day light, rainwater collection systems to be used on common area landscapes, low- water use appliances and fixtures, smart meters and programmable thermostats. City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-17 Final EIR 10/23/18 The for sale residential will comply with Title 24, GBC standards that are required at time of issuance of building permits. The BAAQMD also recommends the installation of solar water heaters, tank- less water heaters, solar panels on residential and commercial buildings, HVAC duct sealing, rainwater collection systems in residential and Commercial Buildings, low-water use appliances and fixtures; Require smart meters and programmable thermostats, and green roofs. Maximizing interior day light and increasing roof/ceiling insulation is also required. The project would comply with the BAAQMD measures as described above. Meet "reach" goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use. Consistent. The project would meet Title 24 energy Efficiency goals, and GBC standards. Requirements for “reach” goals are not required to mitigate a significant unavoidable impact. Require all buildings to become "LEED" certified. Consistent. New construction will comply with Title 24, GBC standards, which will require certification in accordance with state guidelines. Requirements specifically for LEED certification are not required to reduce a significant and unavoidable impact. Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. Consistent. Limits on outdoor lighting would not reduce a significant and unavoidable impact and findings on infeasibility of measures are not required. Nevertheless, this would be implemented per City safety and security guidelines. Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. Not Feasible/Not Applicable. Street sweepers are operated by the City and the project has no control over this equipment. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-18 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. Not Feasible/Not Applicable. This is a GHG emissions reduction measure. As noted above, the project’s GHG emissions impacts are less than; therefore, this is not required as mitigation measure. Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Consistent. The tree palette for the project includes many low-VOC emitting shade trees, which are planned to be used within the parking areas and other common use areas. Use CARB-certified or electric landscaping equipment in project and tenant operations; and introduce electric lawn, and garden equipment exchange program. Consistent. Compliance with CARB-certified equipment less than 50 horse power would be used as part of common area maintenance. Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to infiltrate on-site. Consistent. This water quality measure would not reduce a significant and unavoidable impact and findings on infeasibility of measures are not required. Nevertheless, the commercial development incorporates rainwater collection systems to be used on common area landscapes. The Dublin Ranch water quality/detention basin would provide C.3 off site treatment compliance to most of PA-2 and PA- 3. On site Bio Retention and Silva Cells will be used to provide C.3 treatment compliance for the remaining areas of PA-2 and PA-3 and all of PA-1 and PA-4. Provide electric vehicle charging stations that are accessible for trucks. Consistent. Commercial tenants have the option to incorporate electric vehicle charging stations in the truck dock areas based on their projected demand and user. Provide electrical hookups at the onsite loading docks and at the truck stops for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. Consistent. Commercial tenants have the option to incorporate electric vehicle charging stations in the truck dock areas based on their projected demand and user. City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-19 Final EIR 10/23/18 Provide minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between truck traffic and sensitive receptors and prevent trucks from entering residential site. Consistent. Truck docks are located on the south side of Dublin, adjacent to existing like commercial uses. Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the facility. Not Feasible/Not Applicable. The project does not include warehouses or distribution facilities that would require a significant amount of truck trips. Limited truck trips would be required for commercial uses and would be controlled by end user. On-site equipment should be alternative fueled. Consistent. Commercial tenants have the option to incorporate on-site equipment fueled by alternative fuel source. The proposed commercial and residential uses would have minimal on-site equipment. Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization. Consistent. The City implements signal synchronization. Limit Parking Supply using various strategies, including reduction of spaces, shared parking and unbundled parking. Consistent. Parking supply is provided per city’s code, which makes provisions for shared parking and unbundled parking. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program to incentivize the use of public transport. Transit passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Consistent. The project would incorporate this as an option for employers as part of the TDM program for commercial uses. Provide "end-of-trip" facilities for bicycle riders including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces. Consistent. Designated bicycle parking for both short term and long-term bicycle use. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing, including New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, event promotions and publications. Consistent. The project would incorporate this within the TDM program for commercial uses. Provide preferential parking in convenient locations for commuters who carpool, Consistent. The commercial uses provide preferential parking for EV vehicles, bicycles and motorcycles. The project has At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-20 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 vanpool, ride-share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. incorporated convenient areas for ride-share pick-up and drop-off. Implement Bike-Sharing Program Consistent. The project would incorporate this within the TDM program for commercial tenants. Price Workplace Parking. This may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives. Consistent. The project would incorporate this as an option within TDM program for commercial tenants to educate employees about alternative transportation options and potentially parking charges. Provide Employer-Sponsored Shuttle. The project could implement an employer- sponsored shuttle to and from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station located 1.5 miles from the project site. A shuttle will typically service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Scheduling is within the employer's purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. Consistent. The project could incorporate an employer-sponsored shuttle and/or subsidy for transit access to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station as an option within a required TDM program, to be approved by the City of Dublin. See MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management Program in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR. It should also be noted that the project is providing bus turn outs (for both eastbound and westbound) on Dublin Boulevard that will provide direct service to BART. Use of zero-VOC emissions paint Consistent. This is required per Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2.3 and CALGreen requirement. Using materials that do not require painting. Consistent. Finishes in general are “painted” or finished to some degree either with paint or protective coatings. Use spray equipment with greater transfer efficiencies. Consistent. The project would use high volume low pressure paint sprayers to maximize transfer efficiencies. City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-21 Final EIR 10/23/18 As indicated in the table above, the suggested operational mitigation measures are project design features, required by code or mitigation measures, obsolete, or not applicable. For example, as described in Draft EIR Section 18 (Energy Conservation), the project would install LED streetlights where streetlights needed. The project also would include energy-efficient outdoor lighting for community and publicly accessible outdoor spaces. Photovoltaic systems would be installed on the rooftops of commercial buildings. Photovoltaic solar systems and on- demand water heating systems would be included an option for home buyers. The project would also incorporate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for the commercial areas and the apartments. Response to Comment 7-8: Air Quality – Health Risk Impacts As described in Response to Comment 7-5, the project’s construction emissions are not underestimated. Additionally, the comment misinterprets the health risk calculations in the appendix. The calculations do not use the incorrect daily breathing rates. Breathing rates were weighted for each age group. For example, the analysis used 3 months at 361 liters/kilogram/day (95th percentile for 3rd trimester), 24 months at 1,090 liters/kilogram/day (95th percentile for 0 to 2 years), and 33 months at 861 liters/kilogram/day (95th percentile for 2 to 9 years). It should be noted that these are conservative breathing rates that account for the youngest, most sensitive populations. The construction health risk was calculated for the entire five-year construction activity duration anticipated for the project. Furthermore, the comment incorrectly states that an operational health risk assessment was not prepared for the project. Operational health risks are discussed on pages 6-36 through 6-40 of the Draft EIR. Operational health risks were calculated on 70-year lifetime basis, 30-year, and 9-year exposure scenarios and thresholds were not exceed for any of these exposure durations. Response to Comment 7-9: Air Quality – Construction and Operational Health Risk Refer to Response to Comment 7-8, above. As noted above, construction and operational health risks were quantified and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The commenter’s model runs provided by a hired consultant do not accurately represent the project and are based on inflated assumptions. For example, the modeling conducted by the commenter incorrectly includes 387.5 acres of grading when grading for project would only occur on 76 acres. Additionally, the commenter overestimates the construction equipment by a factor of more than five, as their modeling includes 781 pieces of off-road diesel equipment, when the project would require 144 pieces of off-road diesel equipment. Additionally, the wrong number of daily vehicle trips were modeled (the commenter modeled 22,262 daily vehicle trips as opposed to the proposed 19,327 assumed in the project Traffic Study) and did not incorporate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions associated with the project’s land use design features (e.g., increased density, mix of uses, proximity to transit, etc.). These changes do not accurately represent the project and have a drastic influence on the emissions outputs. However, the commenter’s overstated emissions would have a nominal effect on the risk levels and impacts would remain less than significant. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-22 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment 7-10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – General This comment makes general statements and mischaracterizes the Draft EIR GHG analysis. This comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or note a specific issue or comment related to the Draft EIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is necessary. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-11 through 7-18 for responses to specific comments. Response to Comment 7-11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Impacts The analysis in the Draft EIR is focused on compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy consistent with the BAAQMD’s thresholds for 2020 emissions and consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan standards for 2030 emissions. Both of these methodologies comply with CEQA. BAAQMD specifically states that the GHG thresholds are “Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy OR 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr. or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr. (residents + employees)”. As described in the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update in July 2013, which contains a GHG reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020. The CAP constitutes a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and has been utilized in this analysis for determining the level of significance of the project’s GHG emissions for 2020. Impact GHG-1 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP, and a consistency analysis of the project with the measures in the CAP is provided in Impact GHG-2. The Draft EIR relies on the analysis of the project’s consistency with the CAP for the significance determination for the project. Under CEQA, compliance with CAP measures is used to determine whether project impacts are significant (see Impact GHG-2). Under CEQA, numerical calculations of project emissions to determine compliance with the CAP is not required but is provided in the EIR for informational purposes (See Impact GHG-1). Since the CAP was adopted prior to AB 197 and SB 32 being codified into law in September 2016, the CAP currently does not contain adequate reduction measures to reduce California’s GHG emissions to the AB 197 and SB 32 targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. To provide a conservative analysis, the proposed project’s GHG emissions have been calculated for the year 2030 conditions and compared to the year 2000 levels, which is the nearest year to 1990 available in CalEEMod, to determine if the project would meet the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2017 CARB Scoping Plan reduction measures involve increasing renewable energy use, imposing tighter limits on the carbon content of gasoline and diesel fuel, putting more electric cars on the road, improving energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries. The 2017 CARB Scoping Plan recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt locally- appropriate goals that align with State wide reduction targets and statewide development objectives. As noted above, the Draft EIR bases the significance finding for 2020 on compliance with the City’s CAP measures and reduction targets which were developed to align the City with the City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-23 Final EIR 10/23/18 State’s reduction targets and development objectives. The City’s CAP Update (2013) established a reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020. Although the CAP does not identify a post-2020 reduction target, the 2020 CAP reduction target can be extrapolated to 2030 based on the trajectory of the City’s current reduction target and the State’s established post-2020 reduction goals. Extrapolation/interpolation of interim reduction targets is commonly accepted methodology and recommended by the Association of Environmental Professionals (Climate Change White Paper, 2016). Additionally, the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan also recommends developing post-2020 reduction targets that apply the percent reductions necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals to the community-wide GHG emissions target. The GHG emissions trajectory should show a downward trend consistent with the statewide objectives. The GHG reduction target for 2030 could be established in two ways, either (1) the 40 percent reduction target from 1990 under SB 32 and AB 197 or (2) extrapolating the City’s 2020 target under the CAP to 2030. Extrapolating the City’s 2020 GHG reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels results in a reduction target of approximately 30 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (a reduction rate of approximate 1.50 percent per year). Draft EIR Table 10-5 assessed that the project would result in a 47 percent reduction in GHG emissions over 2000 levels (a reduction rate of approximate 1.57 percent per year). Therefore, the project GHG emissions reductions identified in the Draft EIR meet the GHG reduction targets for 2030 calculated based on both the SB32 target or the extrapolation of the City’s 2020 CAP target to 2030. Additionally, it should be noted that the reduction identified in the Draft EIR and discussed above do not include other reduction measures that would reduce GHG emissions from the project. Therefore, the project GHG emissions are likely overestimated. The additional reduction measures not included in the Draft EIR emissions modeling include reduced energy emissions related to the East Bay Clean Energy (EBCE) community choice aggregation joint powers authority that would serve the project, the use of solar power/photovoltaics on portions of the project site, electric vehicle charging stations, and the shared parking for the apartments, commercial uses, and hospitality uses. Additional reductions would occur from implementation of the latest State building code, the CARB Advanced Clean Cars Program, compliance with the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy. In addition, the EBCE and PG&E are required to procure a minimum of 33 percent of its energy portfolio from renewable sources by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030 and would continue to implement programs consistent with the requirements of SB 350. The project is an infill mixed-use development within an Association of Bay Area Governments Priority Development Area (PDA) under Plan Bay Area. PDAs are places identified by Bay Area communities as areas for investment, new homes, and job growth. PDAs are the foundation for sustainable regional growth, including reduction of GHG emissions from development. Project design features, such as infill/mixed-use development, proximity to transit, and high-density housing inherently result in lower GHG emissions. Additionally, refer to various other GHG reduction design features identified in the table in Response to Comment 7-7 that the project would incorporate. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-24 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 As shown in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the project results in a VMT reduction of approximately 51 percent as compared to the project without implementation of VMT reducing measures. As estimated by CalEEMod and as shown in Appendix B, the project results in a 44 percent reduction in GHG emissions from mobile sources as compared to the project without implementation of VMT reducing measures. This would exceed the reduction in transportation emission required by CARB for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/ Association of Bay Area Governments. The project is also within one mile of a Transit Priority Area in Plan Bay Area which will reduce GHG emissions from vehicle use. The project is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, adjacent to I-580, other major arterials, and bicycle lanes. In addition, the project site is currently served by several transit routes operated by Tri-Valley Wheels including Route 2, Route 30R, Route 501, Route 502, and Route 504. The project would provide residents, employees, and guests with convenient access to public transit and opportunities for walking and biking, which would facilitate a reduction in VMT and related vehicular GHG emissions. These and other measures would further promote a reduction in VMT and subsequent reduction in GHG emissions, which would be consistent with the goals of the City’s CAP, MTC’s Plan Bay Area and SB 32. The project is the type of land use development that is encouraged by the Plan Bay Area RTP/SCS to reduce VMT and expand multi-modal transportation options in order for the region to achieve the GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors required by SB 375, which advances the State’s long-term climate policies.1 By furthering implementation of SB 375, the project supports regional land use and transportation GHG reductions consistent with State regulatory requirements. Furthermore, Appendix B (Local Action) of the 2017 Scoping Plan identifies measures from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) as the basis for the local/project- level GHG reduction measures. It should be noted that the CAPCOA reduction measure are incorporated into the CalEEMod emissions modeling that was conducted for the project. As described above, these measures include increased density, mix of uses, proximity to transit (1.5 miles to the BART station), among others. Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan focuses on transportation and land use measures, energy efficiency, and water efficiency measures at the project level. Consistency with the Sustainability Communities Strategy and a reducing VMT is a primary focus of the 2017 Scoping Plan local actions. As discussed in the Draft EIR and above, the project would reduce VMT through mixed use and infill design features, high residential density, and proximity to transit, TDM measures, all of which are included in Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan. Additionally, consistent with the Scoping Plan local actions, the project City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-25 Final EIR 10/23/18 includes shared parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and water efficient landscaping features. Response to Comment 7-12: Greenhouse Gas – Plan Consistency Refer to Response to Comment 7-11 regarding the applicability of plans to the project. This comment provides general introductory statements related to subsequent comments. Refer to Response to Comment 7-13 through Response to Comment 7-18. Response to Comment 7-13: Greenhouse Gas – Climate Action Plan Consistency Refer to Response to Comment 7-11, above. Impact Draft EIR GHG-1 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP, and a consistency analysis of the project with the measures in the CAP is provided in Impact GHG-2. The Draft EIR relies on the analysis of the project’s consistency with the CAP for the significance determination for the project for 2020. The CAP is not relied on for analysis of post-2020 project emissions. Also, refer to response to Comment 7-11 regarding project GHG emissions reductions and post-2020 emissions. Response to Comment 7-14: Air Quality – Consistency with Regional Plans The purpose of the CARB Scoping Plan consistency discussion is to demonstrate that the project would not conflict with any of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions. As stated above, the analysis under Impact GHG-2 is a consistency with plans analysis. It is not the analysis of whether the project’s greenhouse gas emissions would have a significant effect on the environment which is performed under Impact GHG-1. Table 10-8 properly determines the project’s consistency with applicable Scoping Plan measures. The analysis concludes that the project is consistent with applicable measures and, therefore, the impact is less than significant. Similarly, with regard to Plan Bay Area 2040, the analysis under Impact GHG-2 determined the project’s mix of residential and commercial uses and types of uses are consistent with the GHG reduction planning and housing goals of Plan Bay Area. The project also would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area. Therefore, the impact due to plan consistency is less than significant. See also Response to Comment 7-11. Response to Comment 7-15: Air Quality – Climate Action Plan Measures Refer to Response to Comment 7-11 regarding the applicability of the City’s CAP to the proposed project. A review of Draft EIR Table 10-7 indicates that the applicable CAP measures are incorporated as project design features, required by City policy, or would be required as conditions of approval. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. For example, the project proposes high density, mixed-use development. These key features of the project design are inherently consistent with CAP Measures A.1.2 and A.1.3. A mitigation measure requiring high density, and/or a mix of uses is not necessary or required by CEQA as these are already proposed by the project. Additionally, several of the CAP measures are City policies that the project would be required to implement (e.g., the City Design Strategy, Green Building Ordinance, LED streetlight At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-26 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 specifications, Construction Demolition Debris Ordinance, Citywide Solid Waste Diversion Goals, recycling programs, etc.). City policies are already established requirements and are not required as mitigation. Compliance with City policies would be required and enforced as part of the approval process for various project plans. Response to Comment 7-16: Air Quality – Climate Action Plan Measure Consistency The CAP TOD measure specifically applies to the land uses near the Eastern Dublin Transit Center located near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. These areas include the TOD district of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The CAP’s TOD measure takes credit for the planned TOD developments within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin Transit Center. Dublin’s planned TOD developments, in conjunction with the City’s policies that promote high- density development and mixed-use development, are estimated to result in GHG emissions reductions by the CAP. The CAP’s TOD measure does not require projects outside of these transit districts to be TODs to be consistent. The proposed project is not within these transit areas, but does include high density, mixed-use, infill development that would utilize the nearby BART station. The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s CAP policies. Additionally, as noted in Draft EIR Table 10-7, the project is within 1.5 miles of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The project incorporates TOD features and has access to Dublin Boulevard buses and access to the BART station by bus and bike/pedestrian routes. Response to Comment 7-17: GHG Emissions - Significance Refer to Response to Comment 7-11. For 2020, the analysis in the Draft EIR is focused on the project’s compliance with the City CAP which is a qualified GHG reduction strategy adopted consistent with CEQA standards. As indicated in Response to Comment 7-11, the numerical threshold is just one option identified by BAAQMD for assessing the significance of GHG emissions. Compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy is also an option allowed under CEQA and recommended by the BAAQMD to assess project GHG impacts. Impact Draft EIR GHG-1 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP, and a consistency analysis of the project with the measures in the CAP is provided in Impact GHG-2. The Draft EIR relies on the analysis of the project’s consistency with the CAP for the significance determination for the project for 2020 project emissions. In Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Newhall Ranch, 2015), the Court ruled that use of percent below Business As Usual (BAU) is a valid significance threshold under CEQA. However, the Court determined that the Newhall EIR lacked substantial evidence that the project’s BAU reductions were consistent with the State’s reduction target. The Court stated that the Newhall EIR’s deficiency was that it did not account for any changes or adjustments at the local or project level. As demonstrated in the Draft EIR and noted in Response to Comment 7-11, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP (a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan), which is a method for determining significance of GHG emissions recommended by the Court. The City’s CAP establishes reduction targets based on City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-27 Final EIR 10/23/18 City specific municipal and community emissions inventories and City-specific reduction strategies. Although the CAP 2020 reduction target does not address post-2020 GHG reductions, extrapolating the target in the future and demonstrating substantial progress toward post-2020 reduction goals is a commonly accepted methodology. The project’s GHG emissions reductions and substantial progress toward the post-2020 (2030) reduction goals were demonstrated in the Draft EIR Tables 10-4 through 10-6 and further clarified in Response to Comment 7-11. It should also be noted that the GHG emissions shown in Tables 10-4 through 10-6 are conservative and do not incorporate all of the State’s measures that would be implemented during the Scoping Plan’s time frame. For example, the emissions do not incorporate reductions from the Pavley II Advanced Clean Cars Program, implementation of the latest State building code, future implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) (EBCE and PG&E are required to procure a minimum of 33 percent of its energy portfolio from renewable sources by 2020, and would continue to implement programs consistent with the requirements of SB 350), Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use), or the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water). Project energy emissions would be further reduced as the EBCE community choice aggregation joint powers authority would serve the project. The use of solar power/ photovoltaics on portions of the project site, electric vehicle charging stations, and the shared parking for the apartments, commercial uses, and hospitality uses represent additional GHG emissions reductions conservatively not accounted for in the emissions modeling. The analysis demonstrates that the project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan measures and project emissions would be further reduced with implementation of State measures. This reduction would be significant as the majority of the project emissions are from mobile sources and energy consumption, both of which are regulated on the state level. Response to Comment 7-18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Mitigation As described in Response to Comment 7-11 and 7-17, and in the Draft EIR, for 2020 project emissions, the impacts are less than significant because the project is consistent with the Goals and Measures of the City’s CAP. Since the impact is less than significant, no mitigation is required. For 2030 project emissions, the impacts are less than significant because the project emissions are 40% below 1990 levels consistent with the State GHG reduction target. Since the impacts for 2030 are less than significant, no mitigation is required. Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant and there must be an essential nexus between the mitigation measure and an impact per CEQA Section 15126.4. Nevertheless, several of the suggested mitigation measures are already currently project design features, required by code, obsolete, or not applicable. For example, as described in Draft EIR Section 18 (Energy Conservation), the project would install LED streetlights where streetlights needed. The project also would include energy-efficient outdoor lighting for community and publicly accessible outdoor spaces. Photovoltaic systems would be installed on the rooftops of commercial buildings. Photovoltaic solar systems and on-demand water heating systems would be included an option for home buyers. The project would also incorporate electric vehicle (EV) At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-28 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 charging stations for the commercial areas and the apartments. As noted above, mitigation measures for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions are not required. As described in Response to Comment 7-11 and 7-17, the reduction identified in the Draft EIR conservatively do not account for other reduction features that would benefit the project. Additional reduction features not included in the Draft EIR emissions modeling include reduced energy emissions related to the EBCE community choice aggregation joint powers authority that would serve the project, the use of solar power/photovoltaics on portions of the project site, electric vehicle charging stations, and the shared parking for the apartments, commercial uses, and hospitality uses. Additional reductions would occur from implementation of the latest State building code, the CARB Advanced Clean Cars Program, compliance with the Short- Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy. In addition, the EBCE and PG&E are required to procure a minimum of 33 percent of its energy portfolio from renewable sources by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030 and would continue to implement programs consistent with the requirements of SB 350. The table in Response to Comment 7-7 also identifies numerous other GHG reduction measures that would be implemented by the project. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the project is also consistent with the Community-Wide measures in the City’s CAP and include high-density development, mixed use development, bicycle parking, street trees, internal and external pedestrian connectivity, proximity to transit, green building, LED streetlights, solid waste and recycling measures, among others. The emissions identified in the Draft EIR are conservative and likely overstated as the majority of these reductions are not included in the project emissions modeling. Response to Comment 7-19: Biological Resources – General The commenter provides general introductory remarks and summary of specific comments to follow. No response is necessary. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-20 through 7-35 for responses to specific comments. Response to Comment 7-20: Biological Resources – Existing Setting Existing biological conditions for the project site are based on three surveys that were conducted in December 2017, February 2018, and March 2018. The results of these surveys are documented in Appendix C. This included two floristic-in-nature, protocol-level rare plant surveys on December 7, 2017 and March 19, 2018. Prior to the most recent field survey efforts, WRA reviewed the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) lists to determine which species have been documented in the vicinity of the project area. Based on the site visits, a review of CNDDB occurrence records, and a comparison of species habitat requirements with project area conditions, it was determined that one rare plant species (Congdon’s tarplant) was present and two other rare plants have potential to occur within the project site (San Joaquin spearscale and saline clover). City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-29 Final EIR 10/23/18 These surveys were conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). Consistent with the above described surveys, these guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Furthermore, the field surveys were scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. Local and regional results and supporting documentation are provided in the context of habitat types and quality. Professional biological opinions are stated regarding the potential for plant and animal species to occur. The Draft EIR identified the potential presence of burrowing owl and other nesting birds (e.g. white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike). Specifically, the Rare Plant Survey (Appendix C-2) makes no claim that San Joaquin spearscale or saline clover are absent from the site, but rather the Draft EIR requires pre-construction surveys to assess presence and avoid potential impacts. The CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation provides guidelines and recommendations for burrowing owl survey protocols and mitigations, including buffer size. Detection surveys are not required to assess habitat and potential for burrowing owl. Consistent with agency protocols, mitigation measures Mitigation Measure BIO -1.1, Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 and Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3 require pre-construction surveys for special status plans, Burrowing Owl, and nesting birds, respectively, prior to any ground disturbance and requires specific mitigation if the species are present. Response to Comment 7-21: Biological Resources –Core, Critical, and Unique Populations Core, critical, and unique populations may have potential to occur on the project site, but the presence of such populations were not observed during three surveys of the project site in December 2017, February 2018 and March 2018. While pre-construction surveys for special- status species are required under mitigation measures, this does not diminish the sufficiency of the review and analysis performed to establish existing conditions and the potential for special status species to occur on the site in the EIR. The pre-construction surveys are required to establish the conditions at the time of project commencement to guide the implementation of the required mitigation measures. Responses to comments on potential impacts on individually named species are included in Response to Comments 7-22 through 7-24. Additionally, there is no core, critical, or unique populations of Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, saline clover, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite on the project site. Approximately 371 Congdon’s tarplant individuals were identified on the project site and the population size does not constitute a core population because there are a number records of this species in the surrounding five-mile vicinity, including larger occupied areas. Further, the project site does not constitute a critical or unique population because it is not a range expansion or a unique habitat type for the species. See also Response to Comment 7-20. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-30 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment 7-22: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl Existing Conditions Per the 2018 Biological Resources Assessment (see Draft EIR Appendix C1), a survey was conducted in December 2017 and although no burrowing owls were observed, the site was determined to have suitable habitat because grassland vegetation at the site was found to be of suitable height and potential nest sites from ground squirrel burrows were observed. Documentation, including photographs, were submitted to the City in August 2018, as part of comments on the Draft EIR, confirming the presence of burrowing owls on the site. As described in Response to Comment 7-20, detection surveys are not required to assess habitat and potential for Burrowing owl. The December 2017 survey was conducted under the habitat assessment guidelines described in Appendix C, Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which provides guidelines and recommendations for burrowing owl survey protocols and mitigations, including buffer size. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 requires pre-construction surveys for the Burrowing Owl prior to any ground disturbance, and the implementation of mitigation for any impacted owls, all in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Response to Comment 7-23: Biological Resources – Vernal Pool Branchiopods Vernal pool branchiopods are known to exist in the Livermore Altamont Hill area in Alameda County. Based on field observations and site characteristics, there is no substantial evidence that the project site contains vernal pools or that the seasonal wetlands that are present are inundated for a duration sufficient to support these species. The seasonal wetlands identified at the project site are considered to be highly altered and regularly disturbed, including seasonal discing. Because of the regular disturbance, the seasonal wetlands on site drain quickly and do not support a hydroperiod sufficient to support vernal pool branchiopods, including vernal pool fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, or California linderiella. The site does not contain hardpan soils which hold water in the wetlands for the six weeks necessary for these species to complete their life cycle. The wetland features identified in the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report (W01, W02) are small, shallow depressions that were likely formed because of previous site disturbance. Although these two wetlands are not subject to the routine disturbance the other features are, these two features are too shallow to support a hydroperiod long enough to support vernal pool branchiopods. A biological constraints site visit was conducted in December 2017 and did not identify any special status invertebrates (e.g. distinctive vernal pool plant species) within the wetlands. In February and March 2018, a wetland delineation was conducted, and the wetland features were determined to be seasonal wetlands, not vernal pools, and did not host any special-status invertebrates. Because the project area does not contain the clear depressions in sandstone outcrops that typically support longhorn fairy shrimp within this portion of its range, it is not likely that this species could occur on the project site. The closest population of longhorn fairy shrimp is recorded over five miles from the project Area. The closest occurrence of vernal pool fairy City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-31 Final EIR 10/23/18 shrimp is over six miles away. Like longhorn fairy shrimp, these branchiopods require inundation long enough to support their life cycle. California linderiella is known to occur in a wide variety of vernal pools habitats, though they are typically limited to deeper pools (Platenkamp 1998). These organisms require a minimum of 31 days (43 average) of inundation to reproduce (Helm 1998). The seasonal wetland features described within the project area do not retain water long enough to support habitat for this species. Response to Comment 7-24: Biological Resources – California Linderiella See Response to Comment 7-23. Response to Comment 7-25: Biological Resources – Impact Analysis The commenter provides general introductory remarks and summary of specific comments to follow. No response is necessary. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-26 through 7-30 for responses to specific comments. Response to Comment 7-26: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl Mitigation See Response to Comment 7-22 regarding existing conditions assessment for Burrowing owl. The Draft EIR includes an extensive mitigation measure to protect Burrowing owls, should they be found on the project site prior to construction. Specifically, MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures, states that the project applicant shall comply with the following requirements to reduce potential impacts to Burrowing owl to less than significant: “Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures, set forth in MM BIO 1.2 shall be followed.” Exclusion would result in a significant impact under the GDFW guidelines. Therefore, if avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible during the nesting season, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, will be required to prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. Because MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures identifies specific protocols to protect Burrowing owls, either through avoidance and or relocation, impacts At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-32 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 would be less than significant, and the required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant will be required to consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW. Response to Comment 7-27: Biological Resources – Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite An analysis of both the Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kite are described in Section 7.3.4 Special-Status Species, of the Draft EIR. As noted, no occurrence of Loggerhead shrike was observed during the December 2017 site visit. Loggerhead shrike may incidentally forage in the project area but are not likely to frequent or inhabit the project site. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by development, making it less likely to be foraging and nesting habitat. White-tailed kite was observed foraging during the site visit. However, foraging habitat for either species is not specifically protected by law, and the development of the site will not constitute a substantial adverse effect on the species locally or as a whole. The EIR includes mitigation measures to address any impacts on these species. As stated in MM BIO-1.3, a nesting bird survey will be conducted, and an appropriate buffer will be constructed around all active nests found prior to grading. See also Response to Comment 7-20. Response to Comment 7-28: Biological Resources – Cumulative Impacts The Draft EIR analyzed cumulative impacts for the City of Dublin and surrounding areas based on a General Plan buildout assumption and associated with projected growth within eastern Alameda County, including the East Dublin Specific Plan (1994, updated 2016) and the City of Dublin General Plan (2008), which designates areas for development within the Dublin Planning Area Boundaries. Much of the project site is within the designated General Commercial area with additional areas a mixture of residential and neighborhood commercial, or public/semi- public. The site and is surrounded by development on all sides. Generally, wildlife inhabiting the project site are relatively common, urban-adapted species, currently doing so in spite of the development that surrounds the project site. As discussed in the Draft EIR and the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C-1), the project site is surrounded by existing development and does not connect larger habitat blocks, does not constitute a movement corridor for any species, and would not substantially interfere with movement of wildlife in the vicinity. City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-33 Final EIR 10/23/18 Implementation of MM BIO 1.1 through 1.3 will provide mitigation for potential impacts to special-status species, including pre-construction surveys, establishment of the appropriate buffers for nest avoidance, and mitigation when impacts to special-status species cannot be avoided. Further, future projects under the consideration by the City of Dublin, would require mitigation for potential impacts to special-status species, which would reduce the effects of cumulative impacts. As described in Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of these mitigation measures supports the conclusion that the project would not have a significant effect on biological resources and therefore the contribution will be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Response to Comment 7-29: Biological Resources: Cumulative Impacts on Special-status Species See Response to Comments 7-19, 7-22, 7-27 and 7-28. The DEIR has been corrected Section 7.5.4, to note that the project area does not contain any core, critical habitat, or unique populations. The commenter states that the DEIR fails to provide an analysis of the amount of habitat that existed prior to anthropogenic disturbance on the project site. Under CEQA guidelines (§ 15125), baseline for a project is generally considered existing conditions. The DEIR analyzes the current conditions of the project area, including potential as habitat for special-status species. As described in Response to Comments 7-28, the DEIR analyzed cumulative impacts associated with projected growth within eastern Alameda County, including the East Dublin Specific Plan (1994, updated 2016) and the City of Dublin General Plan (2008), which designates areas for development within the Dublin Planning Area Boundaries. Mitigation measures adequately mitigate for potential impacts to species and habitats through creation or preservation of habitat in amounts equal to those that may be impacted by the proposed project. These mitigation measures are consistent with regulatory guidelines and standard professional practices, as fully described in the Draft EIR MM BIO-1.1 through 1.3. These mitigation measures will ensure that the project would not have a significant effect on biological resources and therefore the contribution will be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Response to Comment 7-30: Biological Resources – Wetlands See Response to Comment 2-1. As shown in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR, below, Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan has been revised to provide further clarity regarding preparation of a wetland mitigation plan. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant and no further mitigation is required. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-34 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Regarding the claims that the mitigation measure is deferred because it does not include a compensatory mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation location and mechanism, site protection mechanisms, financial assurances, or monitoring requirements; all of these items (to the extent that they are applicable) are required by the mitigation measure and also would be part of the consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency. Response to Comment 7-31: Biological Resources – Mitigation of Impacts This is a general opening statement that is addressed in more detail in the following paragraphs of their letter. CEQA requires an analysis of environmental impacts of a project at the earliest meaningful stage of the project and its review. Even though details regarding the effects of project implementation may not be available at that time, CEQA allows for future studies and compliance with agency requirements to validate the findings made in the initial assessment. Numerous published CEQA cases have allowed for mitigation measures to be deferred over time provided that:  Significant impact determinations and formulation of mitigation measures occurs before project approval.  Where the agency has evaluated significant impacts, and identified measures that will mitigate them, the agency is not required to commit to any particular identified mitigation measure as long as it commits to mitigate the impacts in accordance with certain standards.  Identified mitigation measures can rely on regulatory agency approval.  In certain circumstances, the agency can permissibly articulate specific performance criteria and commit to ultimately devising mitigation measures that will satisfy those performance criteria. Response to Comment 7-32: Biological Resources – Mitigation of Special-status Plants See Response to Comments 7-21, 7-28, 7-30, and 7-31. As identified in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared by WRA (2018), San Joaquin spearscale and saline clover have moderate potential to occur in the project site, and site surveys conducted in December, February and March were not intended to constitute protocol- level surveys. Furthermore, as described in MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation, prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species with potential to occur within the project area. These surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009) and will be scheduled to coincide with the known blooming periods of species of concern. City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-35 Final EIR 10/23/18 If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, construction activity exclusion zones will be created. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to occur within the project area. MM BIO-1.1, as described in the DEIR, does include requirements for location, condition, and long-term management and protection of the mitigation areas. This measure also requires approval of the proposed mitigation by both CDFW and the City. The City’s mechanism for enforcement of this mitigation measure is through withholding the grading and/or building permit until the applicant has demonstrated successful compliance with this mitigation measure. Regarding comments concerned with identification of a specific mitigation location, the City is required under the CEQA Guidelines to impose mitigation for impacts to sensitive resources but is not required to identify the exact location of the mitigation, per California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, No. 057018, 09 C.D.O.S. 3669 (2009). Moreover, MM BIO-1.1 requires the applicant to mitigate to a minimum 1:1 ratio, which effectively ensures a no net loss standard to offset project impacts to special-status plants. This means that potential impacts will be fully offset so that potential impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Regarding the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), this applies only to public projects, not private projects in the City of Dublin. Thus, City of Dublin has the discretion to apply different mitigation ratios on a project-by-project basis. Response to Comment 7-33: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl Mitigation See Response to Comments 7-22, 7-26, 7-30, and 7-32. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 sets forth considerations for mitigation measures. The section states that mitigation measures “may specify performance standards,” “must be fully enforceable,” and “must be ‘roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the project.” Mitigation measures BIO-1.1 through 1.3 adequately mitigate for potential impacts to species and habitats At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-36 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 through creation or preservation of habitat in amounts equal to those that may be impacted by the proposed project. In this case, Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures, requires the applicant to retain a qualified biologist to conduct a burrowing owl survey and impact assessment. There are clear and unequivocal performance standards within this mitigation measure that are fully enforceable and roughly proportional to project impacts; for example: “Prior to the first ground disturbing activities…” “The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” “… the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures…” “The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation Appendix A and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW…” The CDFW Staff Report provides guidelines and recommendations for burrowing owl survey protocols and mitigations, including buffer size. The two pre-construction surveys and other avoidance measures detailed in MM BIO-1.2 are sufficient to detect owls prior to construction and avoid take of owls if found on the site in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report. Additionally, if avoidance of occupied burrows and known burrow habitat is not possible, MM BIO-1.2 states that a specified mitigation plan is required and will be reviewed by CDFW prior to implementation. The CDFW Staff Report details guidelines for breeding season and non- breeding season surveys (Appendix D). Because the site is known to be actively occupied by burrowing owls (see Response to Comment Letters 8-12), MM BIO-1.2 would require the applicant to mitigate for occupied habitat pursuant to the guidelines listed in the CDFW Staff Report. This would require the applicant to mitigate at a location that is comparable to or better than the project site, and the CDFW Staff Report lists other requirements for suitable habitat including presence of fossorial mammals. Further, the mitigation land will be protected by a conservation easement for preservation of the mitigation habitat and provide long-term funding. All of these guidelines will be detailed in a monitoring plan and approved by both the City and CDFW prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Regarding the claims that the mitigation measure is deferred because it does not include a compensatory mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation location and mechanism, site protection mechanisms, financial assurances, or monitoring requirements, all of these items (to the extent that they are applicable) would be determined as part of the consultation with CDFW required by the MM BIO-1.2. The performance standards are contained in CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Because of the uncertainty associated with the outcome of the City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-37 Final EIR 10/23/18 burrowing owl survey, it would be premature to make any commitments regarding these items. Requiring focused or pre-construction surveys prior to release of the Draft SEIR is contrary to sound biological practice, as the purpose of these surveys is to identify impacted individuals immediately prior to development and ensure that impacts are avoided, relocated, or otherwise mitigated. Conducting these surveys months or years before development activities would occur would not serve any meaningful purpose, particularly since these species have already been determined to have the potential to occur on the project site. Thus, identifying focused or pre-construction surveys as mitigation measures is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 appropriately cites the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation as the basis for any mitigation that may be necessary. Additionally, page 9 the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation sets forth buffer setback distances based on the time of year and level of disturbance of the project site. Because the exact timing of ground disturbance is not known, referencing the CDFW Staff Report is sufficient and affords the qualified biologist discretion in determining the appropriate distance. As for the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), this applies only to public projects, not private projects in the City of Dublin. Thus, City of Dublin has the discretion to apply different mitigation ratios, but at a minimum 1:1 ratio, on a project-by-project basis. Response to Comment 7-34: Biological Resources – Nesting birds Pre-construction surveys required under MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures will detect the number and location of birds nesting on the site and avoid those nests for the duration of nesting to ensure nesting activity of these individuals will not be impacted. These surveys will be focused in areas of disturbance activities and an appropriate buffer distance around these areas to ensure no indirect effects to nests that may be in the vicinity of the project activities. Survey effort is related to the area of disturbance and will be determined by the qualified biologist at the time of the surveys. Information from all surveys, including duration, location and results will be reported to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. As stated by Mr. Casen, “appropriate buffer size is dependent on several situational and species-specific factors.” Buffer distance will vary by species and will be appropriate to avoid impacts to nesting birds. The listed buffer distances of 50-250 feet are professionally-based standard-practice distances and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the field and reported to the City in the survey results reports. Response to Comment 7-35. Biological Resources – Wetland Mitigation Plan See Response to Comment 2-1 and 7-30. The wetland mitigation plan required under MM BIO-3.1 will be approved by the respective regulatory agencies, as necessary, pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne, prior to implementation of the project. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-38 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Regarding the statement that numerous studies have demonstrated that many compensatory mitigation projects permitted under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act are not achieving the goal of “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions, the results of the Ambrose and Lee (20042) study are based on a review of projects that were completed within the Los Angeles region and were permitted by the LARWQCB. Further, the projects included in this review were implemented from 1991 to 2002. The 2008 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule 3 established regulations regarding performance standards and criteria for permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation for projects permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These standards were not in place for all projects permitted prior to this ruling. This rule applied equivalent standards to permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation by “emphasizing a watershed approach in selecting compensatory mitigation project locations, requiring measurable, enforceable ecological performance standards and regular monitoring for all types of compensation and specifying the components of a complete compensatory mitigation plan, including assurances of long-term protection of compensation sites, financial assurances, and identification of the parties responsible for specific project tasks.” Response to Comment 7-36: Biological Resources – Conclusion The commenter summarizes their CEQA concerns that were discussed above. No response is necessary. Response to Comment 7-37: Air Quality – General See Response to Comment 7-4. Response to Comment 7-38: Air Quality – Project Emissions See Response to Comment 7-5. Response to Comment 7-39: Air Quality – Mitigation Measures for Construction Emissions See Response to Comment 7-5. Response to Comment 7-40: Air Quality – Grading Material See Response to Comment 7-9. 2 Ambrose, RF, SF Lee. 2004. Guidance Document for Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under the Clean Water Act Section 401 by the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board. 3 Department of Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332; U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 230. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. 73 Fed. Reg. §19594 (2008). City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-39 Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment 7-41: Air Quality – Project Emissions See Response to Comments 7-5 and 7-9. Response to Comment 7-42: Air Quality – Mitigation to Reduce Emission See Response to Comments 7-5 and 7-7. Response to Comment 7-43: Air Quality – Health Risk Emissions See Response to Comments 7-8 and 7-9. Response to Comment 7-44: Air Quality: Mitigation Measures for Construction Emissions See Response to Comment 7-5 and 7-7. Response to Comment 7-45: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Impacts See Response to Comment 7-11 and 7-17. Response to Comment 7-46: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Climate Action Plan Consistency See Response to Comment 7-13. Response to Comment 7-47: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Impacts See Response to Comment 7-11. Response to Comment 7-48: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Mitigation See Response to Comment 7-18. Response to Comment 7-49: Biological Resources – Existing Conditions Comments made are a summary of information found in Chapter 7: Biological Resources, and no response is necessary. Response to Comment 7-50: Biological Resources – Protocol Surveys See Response to Comments 7-20 through 7-22. Response to Comment 7-51: Biological Resources – Vernal Pool Branchiopods See Response to Comment 7-23. Response to Comment 7-52: Biological Resources – California Linderiella See Response to Comment 7-23. Response to Comment 7-53: Biological Resources – Species-Specific Surveys See Response to Comments 7-20 through 7-23. Response to Comment 7-54: Biological Resources – Core, Critical, and Unique Populations See Response to Comment 7-21. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 2-40 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment 7-55: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owls See Response to Comments 7-22 and 7-26. Response to Comment 7-56: Biological Resources – Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite See Response to Comment 7-27. Response to Comment 7-57: Biological Resources – Cumulative Impacts See Response to Comment 7-28. Response to Comment 7-58: Biological Resources – Wetlands See Response to Comment 2-1. Response to Comment 7-59: Biological Resources – Mitigation of Special-status Plans See Response to Comments 7-21, 7-28, and 7-31. Response to Comment 7-60: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owls See Response to Comments 7-22 and 7-26. Response to Comment 7-61: Biological Resources – Nesting Bird See Response to Comment 7-34. Response to Comment 7-62: Biological Resources – Wetland Mitigation Plan See Response to Comment 2-1. Response to Comment Letter #8: Christina Wu Response to Comment 8-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl The City recognizes the fact that the commenter identified and photographed Burrowing Owls on the site. As discussed in Response to Comment 7-22, while no Burrowing Owls were identified on site as part of a survey that was conducted in December 2017, the Draft EIR recognized the fact that the project site was determined to have suitable habitat because of grassland vegetation and nest sites from ground squirrel burrows were observed. As described in Response to Comment 7-26, the Draft EIR includes an extensive mitigation measure to protect Burrowing Owls, should they be found on the project site prior to construction. Response to Comment Letter #9: Shannon Wing Response to Comment 9-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl See Response to Comment 8-1. City of Dublin At Dublin Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-41 Final EIR 10/23/18 Response to Comment Letter #10: Akira and Shannon Wing Response to Comment 10-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl See Response to Comment 8-1. Response to Comment Letter #11: Estela Victoria Response to Comment 11-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl See Response to Comment 8-1. This mitigation will assure no loss of Burrowing Owls. Response to Comment Letter #12: Patricia Burroughs Response to Comment 12-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl See Response to Comment 8-1. Response to Comment Letter #13: City of Livermore Response to Comment 13-1: Compatibility with the Valley Link Extension Project Adjacent to the project site, the planned Valley Link extension is preliminarily shown within the Caltrans right-of-way of Interstate 580. As shown, the proposed project would not conflict with future improvements as currently envisioned for the Valley Link extension. However, the City of Dublin will continue to monitor plans for the planned Valley Link extension and work with the project applicant to accommodate adequate right-of-way if necessary. City of Dublin At Dublin EIR Mitigation Changes to the Draft EIR | Page 3-1 Final EIR 10/23/18 3 Changes to the Draft EIR Changes to the Draft EIR are shown on the following pages in the order that they appear in the EIR. New text is shown in underline, and removed text is shown in strikethrough. These text changes do not constitute substantial new information and do not result in significant new impacts or the increase in severity of impacts already disclosed. At Dublin City of Dublin Page 1-4 | Executive Summary Draft EIR 10/23/18  Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts would occur through cumulative conditions.  Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable. In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of LivermorePleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.  Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term + Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.  Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average City of Dublin At Dublin Executive Summary | Page 1-11 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Impact Impact Significance Mitigation substantially disturb sensitive receptors (Class II). Impact N-3: Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels (Class II). Less than significant with Mitigation MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation Impact N-4: Result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels (Class II). Less than Significant with Mitigation MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction Impact N-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on noise (Class II). Less than significant with Mitigation MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation Population & Housing No significant impacts identified. Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems No significant impacts identified. Transportation & Circulation Impact TR-1: Create a potentially dangerous new intersection (Class II). Less than significant with mitigation MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class II). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing + Project conditions (Class II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway Significant and unavoidable MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements At Dublin City of Dublin Page 1-12 | Executive Summary Draft EIR 10/23/18 Impact Impact Significance Mitigation segments and ramps in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I). MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-Term + Project conditions (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Near-Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I Impact). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements City of Dublin At Dublin Executive Summary | Page 1-13 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Impact Impact Significance Mitigation Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-9: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative + Project conditions (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard At Dublin City of Dublin Page 1-14 | Executive Summary Draft EIR 10/23/18 Impact Impact Significance Mitigation MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Cumulative + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable congestion management program for designated roads, highway, or freeways (Class I). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements Impact TR-12: Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (Class III). Less than significant None required Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds along roadways that exceed established LOS standards (Class II ). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Energy Conservation Impact ER-1: Encourage activities that result in the use of large amounts of fuel or energy, or use these resources in a wasteful manner (Class III) Less than Significant None required 1.9.1 Cumulative Impacts Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”) together with other projects causing related impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1)). This City of Dublin At Dublin Air Quality | Page 6-33 Draft EIR 10/23/18  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AQ-2.2 Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards. MM AQ-2.3 Architectural Coating The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20 grams per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-7-20 | Biological Resources Draft EIR 10/23/18 Mitigation for Impact BIO-3 MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404, Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB). A If necessary, aA wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. This may include the creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. The wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agency(s) and result in no net loss of wetland habitat value or acreages. The wetland mitigation plan shall include the following: 1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values; 2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies; 3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or preserved; 4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and 5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank). Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement. (Class III). The project site is surrounded on four sides by roadways which create an anthropogenic barrier to dispersal around the project site and precludes the primary function of a habitat corridor, to City of Dublin At Dublin Biological Resources | Page 7-21 Draft EIR 10/23/18 link two separated but occupied habitats. Therefore, given that the project site is bounded by urban development, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor connecting two or more areas of occupied habitat, and impacts would be less than significant. Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances (Class III). Heritage Tree Ordinance The project site does not contain any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore trees that are 24 inches in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above natural grade. Therefore, the project would not be subject to the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and no significant impacts would occur. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the EACCS. The EACCS is a guidance document that is used by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for private development as it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires a consistency determination under CEQA. Therefore, no conflicts would occur and impacts would be less than significant. 7.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis The geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to biological resources includes the City of Dublin, which contains suitable and occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White- tailed kite. This area may alsoHowever, based on professional judgement and field surveys, the project site does not support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and long-term survival of these species. Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources (Class II). As stated above, the project would not result in a net loss of riparian habitat and would not result in a loss of any heritage trees. The project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to less-than-cumulatively considerable. The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite would be reduced through adherence to MM BIO-1.1. MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3. Although past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-7 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Study Intersections 1. Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr [DUB] 22. Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. [DUB] 2. Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 23. Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. [DUB] 3. Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. [DUB] 24. Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. [DUB] 4. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps [CAL] 25. Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. [DUB] 5. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps [CAL] 26. Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. [DUB] 6. Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. [PLS] 27. Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL] 7. Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. [DUB] 28. Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps [CAL] 8. Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. [DUB] 29. El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. [PLSLIV] 9. Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct [DUB] 30. Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB] 10. Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. [DUB] 31. Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB] 11. Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 32. Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 12. Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 33. Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. [DUB] 13. Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd* [DUB] 34. Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. [DUB] 14. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* [DUB] 35. Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd.* [DUB] 15. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way [DUB] 36. Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. [DUB] 16. Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL] 37. Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. [DUB] 17. Tassajara Rd. /Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. [CAL] 38. Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. [DUB] 18. Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. [PLS] 39. Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. [DUB] 19. Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 40. Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. [DUB] 20. Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way [DUB] 41. Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. [DUB] 21. Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. [DUB] * Includes both weekday and weekend intersection analysis. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation, [LIV] – City of Livermore Study Freeway Segments a. I-580 from Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr. [CAL] c. I-580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road [CAL] b. I-580 from Hacienda Dr. to Tassajara Rd [CAL] d. I-580 from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard [CAL] [CAL] – California Department of Transportation At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-20 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18  Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #26) o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak  El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak  Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39) o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak  Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40) o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak The following gateway intersections operate at LOS E or worse, but are acceptable based on the City of Pleasanton LOS standards for gateway intersections:  Hacienda Drive / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #5) o Operates at LOS E during AM Peak o Operates at LOS E during PM Peak  Hacienda Drive / Owens Drive (Intersection #6) o Operates at LOS F during PM Peak  Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road / WB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #16) o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak  Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17) o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak  Fallon Road/El Charro Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #28) o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Cumulative conditions during the Saturday peak hours.  Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) o Operates at LOS F during the Saturday Peak At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-24 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 17 Tassajara Rd./Santa Rita Rd./ I- 580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 42.5 D 42.8 D 45.4 D 67.1 E 52.4 D 117.4 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 30.9 C 32.8 C 40.9 D 69.6 E 137.0 F 207.2 F 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 37.9 D 14.0 B 42.9 D 14.3 B 20 Brannigan St / Aviano Way (Future Project Dwy. #2) SSSC DUB D 2.9 A 3.3 A 3.1 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 2.3 A Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 14.0 B 9.4 A 13.8 B 10.0 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 25.4 C 18.2 B 24.2 C 19.0 B 22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St. (Future Project Dwy. #3) AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.0 A 8.8 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 15.5 B 18.2 B 17.2 B 27.4 C 148.1 F 365.7 F 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 7.4 A 11.3 B 20.0 C 128.7 F 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 35.5 D 14.4 B 72.2 E 18.9 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 19.8 B 21.0 C 42.0 D 100.6 F 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 15.8 B 37.9 D 26.7 C 31.4 C 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 12.7 B 12.6 B 76.1 E 102.0 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 52.3 D 89.7 F 132.2 F 262.1 F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-25 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 17.9 B 33.4 D 22.7 C 57.7 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 17.5 B 25.0 C 26.2 C 155.4 F 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 16.8 B 21.5 C 25.1 C 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-26 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 5: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project – Saturday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops (Future Project Dwy. #1) Signal DUB D 18.6 B 20.3 C 13.7 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 72.4 F 106.4 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-43 Draft EIR 10/23/18 City of Livermore As stated in the City of Livermore General Plan, intersections in Livermore shall not exceed mid- level LOS D (average control delay of 45 seconds or less for a signalized intersection), with the exception of gateway intersections. The following would be considered a LOS impact:  If the project were to worsen the LOS from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F, this would be considered a significant impact.  For a signalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F without the project, and the project were to add any peak hour trips, this would be considered a significant impact. Mitigations for these significant impacts would be required to improve the intersection to at or better than without project conditions. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Impacts to intersections on Routes of Regional Significance as defined by the TVTC would be considered significant if:  A signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with less-than-capacity conditions for motor vehicles (i.e., LOS E or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 80 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at [LOS] F;  At a study signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic, the project would cause (a) the overall volume-to- capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to increase 0.05 or more. Intersections in downtown areas and/or specifically exempted by local jurisdictions are exempt from this TVTC standard. Although the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, September 2017, specifies the use of the 2010 HCM method for evaluating intersection operations, the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 HCM method. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the 2000 HCM method is used to assess impacts under the TVTC criteria. The 2000 HCM method tends to produce more conservative results for motor vehicle operations and use of the 2000 HCM method would capture potential impacts under the TVTC criteria. Alameda County Transportation Commission The Alameda CTC does not have adopted thresholds of significance for Congestion Management Plan (CMP) land use analysis purposes. Past analyses within the City of Dublin have used the following criteria to assess roadway segment impacts: At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-48 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Project Trip Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-12b: Near-Term Project Trip Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, and Figure 17-12c: Cumulative Project Trip Assignment Turning Movement Volumes. Project trips added to Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative volumes are shown in Figure 17-13: Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-14: Near-Term + Project Turning Movement Volumes and Figure 17-15: Cumulative + Project Turning Movement Volumes, respectively. 17.5.5 Proposed Project Driveways and Intersections As shown in Figure 17-11: Project Site Plan, the project is proposing 12 project driveways and/or intersections: • Intersection #13 – Tassajara Road / The Shops / Project Driveway #1 • Intersection #20 – Brannigan Street / Aviano Way / Project Driveway #2 • Intersection #22 – Brannigan Street / Finnian Way / Project Driveway #3 • Intersection #30 – Tassajara Road (north of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #4 • Intersection #31 – Tassajara Road (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #5 • Intersection #32 – Gleason Drive / Project Driveway #6 • Intersection #33 – Central Parkway (east of Tassajara Rd) / Project Driveway #7 • Intersection #34 – Central Parkway (west of Brannigan St) / Project Driveway #8 • Intersection #35 – Dublin Boulevard / Project Driveway #9 • Intersection #36 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #10 • Intersection #37 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #11 • Intersection #38 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #12 Vehicle Queuing A queuing analysis was completed for the outbound approach for each project driveway to determine the number of lanes needed and the necessary lane length. Table 17-13: Project Driveway Lane Lengths Summary summarizes the lanes needed and the lengths. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-50 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 currently no left turn movement exist thus limiting direct connection from Tassajara Road southbound to I-580. This new traffic signal would provide pedestrians and bicyclists a controlled pathway across Dublin Boulevard. Without this traffic signal, pedestrians would need to cross Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Tassajara Road or Brannigan Street. There are no final design plans for the proposed intersection. Therefore, the intersection design should follow the City of Dublin’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Guidelines to promote a safe design for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian features should include crosswalks on the north, south, and eastall legs of the intersection. The west leg may not include a crosswalk because it is anticipated that the northbound left turn and eastbound right turn vehicular movements will be heavily used and therefore would potentially conflict with pedestrians on the west leg of the intersection. Pedestrian countdown signals should be installed for each pedestrian movement across the intersection. Since the distance across Dublin Boulevard is long, a mid-block median refuge should be installedBicycle features shouldmay include colorized pavement for the bicycle lane on the eastbound approach to emphasize the bicycle right-of-way as there are expected to be a high volume of eastbound right turning vehicles crossing the bicycle lane to enter the project site south of Dublin Boulevard. The existing distance between these two signalized intersections is approximately 1,000 feet centerline to centerline. The proposed traffic signal would bisect this roadway segment along Dublin Boulevard into approximately 550 feet and 450 feet for the segment to the west of the signal and for the segment to the east of the signal, respectively. These short distances are not typical for the installation of traffic signals. The City of Dublin General Plan roadway standards state that intersections with median openings shall be spaced no closer than 750 feet. In special circumstances, such as “T” intersections, intersection spacing less than 750 feet may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Typically, traffic signals are at least 1,000 feet apart to minimize traffic spill over to adjacent signals, limit frequent stops, optimize progression of signals, and reduce the occurrences of vehicles queued and blocking intersections. The spacing of the signals also play an important role in safety considerations for access to adjacent land uses. It should be noted that the two traffic signals on Dublin Boulevard, west of Tassajara Road, are spaced less than 1,000 feet apart but the land uses accessing these intersections are significantly different than the project in location, access, and intensity. The intersections of Dublin Boulevard and John Monego Court (Intersection #9), Dublin Boulevard and Glynnis Rose Drive (Intersection #10), and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Intersection #14) are spaced 660 feet apart and 730 feet apart, respectively. With these shorter distances between the traffic signals, there are instances in which the eastbound queues on Dublin Boulevard propagate back from Tassajara Road, and into the Glynnis Rose Drive intersection in the PM peak hour indicating an existing concern about short spaced intersections. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-52 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18  Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or Tassajara Road, and/or  Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant may submit additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently verified, demonstrating that the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no longer required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. Implementation of this mitigation measure would thereby reduce impacts to less than significant (Class II). 17.5.6 Existing + Project Impact Analysis Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I). Weekday Peak Hours As shown in Table 17-14: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each jurisdiction: City of LivermorePleasanton The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable LOS:  El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II) o The project adds 69 trips to the intersection in the AM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at LOS E. MM TR-2.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, since the mitigation is located in the City of Livermore Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-16: Mitigated Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS. As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-53 Draft EIR 10/23/18 It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III). MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Livermore Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for improvements to the intersection of El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to increase the split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left turn traffic volumes. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria, but not the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III). MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding and implementing the TDM program. The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer in coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM program may include but not be limited to the following measures:  Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or subsidized rate to all employees.  Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.  Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per Section 132(F) of federal tax code, where an employer can offer its employees a monthly subsidy for public transit.  Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of 5% employees.  Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number approved by the City.  Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-54 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18  Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the formation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA)  Facilitate employer-sponsored carpooling and ride-matching programs.  Provide preferential carpool parking.  Implement a guaranteed ride home program.  Provide an on-site car share program.  Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid peak-hour travel (flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.).  Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin businesses. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to participants.  Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit, City CarShare program, and other relevant alternative transportation options.  Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation alternatives by email to all employees.  Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide information about the TDM program. Create a website with similar information.  Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information dissemination. The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before September 30 detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing the program’s effectiveness, identifying any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and identifying additional steps to be taken, if necessary, to reduce traffic impacts. Additional details regarding TDM monitoring shall be developed as part of the development of the TDM program. Saturday Peak Hours As shown in Table 17-15: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project condition during the Saturday peak hours. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-56 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 40.5 D 36.7 D 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 2.9 A 3.3 A 4.3 A 4.5 A Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 17.9 C 12.4 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 28.4 C 18.0 B 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.2 A 9.3 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 15.5 B 18.2 B 16.5 B 16.7 B 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 6.9 A 10.4 B 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 33.1 C 15.0 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 13.9 B 15.4 B 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 8.8 A 11.3 B 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 7.9 A 8.9 A 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 44.1 D 59.0 69 trips E 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 8.6 A 9.1 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 11.0 B 17.3 C 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 10.3 B 9.0 A 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 0.0 A City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-57 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 11.9 B 11.3 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 13.5 B 30.2 C 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.2 B 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 1.3 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.7 A 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 11.1 B 9.4 A 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 10.6 B 9.0 A 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 21.8 C 22.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-58 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 15: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 18.6 B 21.3 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 44.0 D 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 40.6 D City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-59 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 16: Mitigated Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing + Project Mitigated Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 59.0 E 43.5 D At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-62 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.  Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II) o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55 feet in the AM peak hour. Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 253 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 250 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II). MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the westbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.  Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class II) o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 49 feet in the PM peak hour. Implementation of MM TR-3.3 would reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 278 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project queue of 266 feet. The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project queue and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II). MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.  Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17) (Class II) o The project increases the queue length for the southbound left turn lane by 25 feet in the PM peak hour. City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-63 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Implementation of MM TR-3.4 would extend the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet would mitigate the project’s increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The improvements shall consist of extending the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn pocket.  Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project Driveway (Intersection #13) (Class II) o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 63 feet in the SAT peak hour. Implementation of MM TR-3.5 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 207 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II). MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project Driveway Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs. Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards. (Class I) As shown in Table 17-18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Existing + Project condition. However, as mentioned previously, each freeway is actually over capacity and At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-64 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 should be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS. Table 17- 18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis # Study Segment (I-580) Dir Lanes Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS a Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive WB 5 9,081 35.7 E 7,762 28.3 D EB 7 8,213 20.7 C 7,841 19.8 C b Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road WB 5 9,427 38.1 E 6,715 23.8 C EB 5 6,679 23.7 C 7,506 27.1 D c Tassajara Road to Fallon Road WB 5 8,609 32.7 D 6,533 23.1 C EB 5 5,647 19.9 C 7,283 26.1 D d Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard WB 5 8,469 31.9 D 6,532 23.1 C EB 5 5,712 20.2 C 7,622 27.6 D Notes: 1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded light blue. 2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software. 3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis. 4. Express lanes not included in this analysis. Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would require the applicant to pay their proportional share to fund regional roadway improvements. This Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund is calculated from the average peak hour vehicle trips. Additional information on the program can be found on the TVTC website. These improvements may include the second phase of I- 680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the study area. The I-680/I-580 interchange project should help to alleviate congestion on westbound I-580 as vehicles going from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 have only one lane through the connector loop at the interchange and this creates a queue on I-580 since the throughput of the loop ramp less than the demand, particularly due to the slow speeds by trucks using the loop ramp. The State Route 84 widening project from Pigeon Pass to I-680 should help to provide additional capacity on State Route 84 and divert more traffic from I-580 between I-680 and State Route 84. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-65 Draft EIR 10/23/18 As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) to pay all applicable regional transportation impact fees related to freeway improvements. I-580 Freeway Ramps Table 17-19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis shows the volume, density, and level of service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Based on this analysis, the LOS at each freeway ramp would remain at an acceptable level resulting in no impact. Table 17- 19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis Interchange (I-580) Dir Ramp Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density (pc/mi/ln) Δ Density LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) Δ Density LOS Hacienda Drive WB Diagonal On-ramp 27.4 0.3 C 24.2 0.4 C Loop On-ramp 22.0 0.0 C 20.9 12.0 C Off-ramp 29.7 0.3 D 21.1 0.3 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 19.6 0.3 B 24.0 0.7 C Loop On-ramp 18.7 0.1 B 20.4 9.7 C Off-ramp 17.1 0.2 C 15.9 0.5 C Tassajara Road WB Diagonal On-ramp 32.0 0.6 D 20.3 9.9 C Loop On-ramp 21.0 12.0 C 17.5 0.0 B Off-ramp 26.6 0.1 C 20.0 0.2 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 17.7 0.1 B 21.2 0.2 C Loop On-ramp 20.6 0.3 C 28.0 0.5 C Off-ramp 23.7 0.6 C 23.5 0.9 C Fallon Road WB Diagonal On-ramp 28.7 0.2 D 22.5 0.2 C Loop On-ramp 30.3 0.1 D 24.6 0.3 C Off-ramp 25.6 0.1 C 19.5 0.3 B Diagonal On-ramp 21.1 7.6 C 27.0 0.0 C City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-67 Draft EIR 10/23/18 On-ramp Peak Hour Storage Length (ft) SOV Metering Rate (vph) Existing Existing + Project SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 309 225 309 225 WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 636 > 1,100 678 > 1,100 EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 368 0 403 0 WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 256 0 EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 284 1,100 Notes: 1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900 vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial. 2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes. 3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text. For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the SOV volume to 284 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,100 feet and exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to this on-ramp. Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would reduce the queues to less than significant, however, because this is a Caltrans facility and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of this mitigation the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road. However, since the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this location, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-68 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 17.5.7 Near-Term + Project Impact Analysis Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards. Weekday Peak Hours As shown in Table 17-21: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project condition during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each jurisdiction: City of Dublin The project would increase the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds in the PM peak hour, further degrading the following already deficient LOS E intersection:  Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I) o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.0 to 1.4 (a 0.4 increase) during the PM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F. This intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Near-Term without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity. The intersection already includes triple left turns in the westbound and northbound direction, which are the critical turning movements. Furthermore, it is not feasible to extend the signal timing cycle length, since it is at 200 seconds in the Near-Term (2025) conditions, and consequently, it is not possible to further coordinate signal timing with adjacent traffic signals. Given these conditions, project impacts to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard under the Near-Term + Project condition would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and unavoidable (Class I). City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-69 Draft EIR 10/23/18 City of Pleasanton The project would add 10 or more trips, degrading the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F or the project and further degrading the following already deficient LOS E or F intersection.:  Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class II) o The project adds 278 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS E. MM TR-5.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday. As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 115 seconds. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III). City of Livermore The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable LOS:  El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II) o The project adds 70 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS F. Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is located in the City of PleasantonLivermore and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-70 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria, but not the TVTC criteria since the project does not increase the intersection v/c by 0.03 or the critical v/c by 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than- significant (Class III). Saturday Peak Hours As shown in Table 17-23: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project conditions during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each jurisdiction: City of Dublin  Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class III) o The intersection operates at LOS F with and without the project, but the v/c does not increase be 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase by 0.05 or more during the Saturday peak hour. It should be noted that this is also not an impact under TVTC criteria because although the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F, the Project does not increase the v/c by 0.03 or more and does not increase the critical v/c by 0.05 or more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III). Implementation of the project would cause the following new intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS:  Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35) (Class II) o The project proposes a new intersection for the project driveway on Dublin Boulevard that will operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the Near-term + Project Saturday peak hour. MM TR-1.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS C in the Saturday peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-24: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Saturday. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-72 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 40.9 D 69.6 E 44.5 D 76.3 278 trips E 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 37.9 D 14.0 B 41.6 D 33.7 C 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 3.1 A 3.2 A 4.6 A 4.7 A Worst Approach 14.0 B 9.4 A 18.8 C 12.5 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 25.4 C 18.2 B 29.6 C 19.1 B 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.4 A 9.4 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 17.2 B 27.4 C 12.6 B 22.3 C 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 7.4 A 11.3 B 5.0 A 11.4 B 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 35.5 D 14.4 B 35.5 D 14.5 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 19.8 B 21.0 C 20.1 C 22.4 C 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 15.8 B 37.9 D 16.4 B 42.8 D 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 12.7 B 12.6 B 13.1 B 13.5 B 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 52.3 D 89.7 F 52.9 D 92.5 70 trips F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.3 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 13.3 B 22.6 C 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-73 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Worst Approach 12.0 B 9.7 A 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 9.5 A 0.0 A 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 12.1 B 11.4 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 25.6 C 26.4 C 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A Worst Approach 9.3 A 10.5 B 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.1 B 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.2 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 17.9 B 33.4 D 18.4 B 34.1 C 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 17.5 B 25.0 C 17.5 B 26.3 C 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 16.8 B 21.5 C 16.9 B 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-74 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 97.4 F 88.3 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 76.3 E 54.2 D 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 92.5 F 69.5 E City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-75 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 23: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 20.3 C 29.5 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 130.6 1.18 F 119.4 1.12 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 59.2 E At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-76 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 119.4 F 119.4 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 59.2 E 30.7 C City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-79 Draft EIR 10/23/18 As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. MM TR-6.1: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length in the AM peak hour to be 155 seconds and adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement in the PM Peak hour. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.  Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23) (Class II) o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 180 feet in the PM peak hour. Implementation of MM TR-6.2 reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 290 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 275 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II). MM TR-6.2: Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.  Dublin Boulevard / The Shops (Intersection #13) (Class II) o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 111 feet in the SAT peak hour. Implementation of MM TR-3.5 and MM TR-6.3 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 98 feet to 220 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II). At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-84 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to this on-ramp. Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would apply to this impact. In addition, MM TR-7.1 would improve the impact. However, since the intersection is a Caltrans facility, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. MM TR-7.1: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive. 17.5.8 Cumulative + Project Impact Analysis Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards. Weekday Peak Hours As shown in Table 17-29: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the “Cumulative + Project Conditions” during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each jurisdiction: City of Dublin The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS per the following; 1) increases the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds of an already deficient LOS E facility, or 2) increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility by 0.03 for the overall intersection or 0.05 for the critical movement.  Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II) o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 2.17 to 2.44 (a 0.27 increase) during the PM peak hour. MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement from 2.44 to 1.95, less than the 2.17 critical v/c movement under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore, impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-85 Draft EIR 10/23/18 without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday. MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and also the TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement to better than without project conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II).  Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I) o The project increases the critical movement delay from 145.5 to 191.9 seconds (a 46.4-second increase) during the AM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F. In the PM peak hour, the project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.32 to 1.61 (a 0.29 increase) and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F. As discussed previously, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Near-Term without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday. As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and unavoidable (Class I).  Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #23) (Class II) o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.37 to 1.46 (a 0.09 increase) during the PM peak hour. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-88 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.5 would improve the critical v/c to better than without project conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II). City of Pleasanton The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F or the project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient LOS E or F intersection.The project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient LOS E intersection:  Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class I) o The project adds 127 trips and 261 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM peak hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS F for both peak hours. MM TR-8.6 would reduce the delay to less than the Cumulative condition. However, since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday. As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 145 seconds. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, and the TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the v/c by more than 0.03. Since MM TR-8.6 would improve the v/c to better than without project conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II). City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-89 Draft EIR 10/23/18 City of Livermore The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable LOS:  El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II) o The project adds 45 trips and 99 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM peak hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS F for both peak hours. Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday. It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria, but not the TVTC criteria because although the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F, the v/c does not increase by 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase be 0.05 or more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III). Saturday Peak Hours As shown in Table 17-31: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Cumulative + Project Conditions during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each jurisdiction: City of Dublin The project increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility by 0.05 for the critical movement.  Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I) o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.20 to 1.62 (a 0.42 increase) during the Saturday peak hour. The intersection continues to operate at an LOS F with the project. As discussed above, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Cumulative without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). However, to help reduce the severity of the impact, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-91 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 27: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 14.2 B 11.6 B 14.3 B 11.9 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 22.3 C 21.8 C 23.0 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 47.5 D 126.4 2.17 F 52.4 D 147.7 2.44 F 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.7 A 29.8 C 8.8 A 32.1 C 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.9 E 78.8 E 76.8 E 86.8 F 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 23.4 C 121.0 F 23.6 C 128.2 F 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.3 B 24.5 C 16.7 B 26.8 C 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.4 B 19.6 B 12.1 B 21.0 C 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 10.9 B 6.9 A 11.5 B 7.9 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 17.7 B 23.9 C 18.3 B 29.7 C 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 39.5 D 39.8 D 33.5 C 37.7 D 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 31.9 C 23.9 C 23.7 C 23.9 C 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.6 A 11.8 B 12.2 B 19.6 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* Signal DUB D 146.9 145.5 F 259.2 1.32 F 88.8 191.9 F 183.6 1.61 F 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 6.1 A 19.2 B 6.2 A 18.3 B 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 44.8 D 113.9 F 55.8 E 145.3 F 17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/AD 52.4 D 117.4 F 55.5 E 143.9 F At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-92 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 137.0 F 207.2 F 144.9 127 trips F 214.9 261 trips F 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 42.9 D 14.3 B 43.3 D 15.6 B 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 3.2 A 2.3 A 4.6 A 4.0 A Worst Approach 13.8 B 10.0 B 18.1 C 13.6 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.2 C 19.0 B 27.8 C 23.3 C 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.8 A 8.4 A 10.3 B 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 148.1 F 365.7 1.37 F 16.8 B 104.9 1.46 F 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 128.7 F 21.7 C 60.1 E 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 72.2 E 18.9 B 72.3 E 19.0 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 42.0 D 100.6 1.48 F 43.0 D 101.0 1.54 F 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 26.7 C 31.4 C 28.2 C 34.3 C 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.1 E 102.0 F 78.8 E 108.7 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 132.2 F 262.1 F 135.2 45 trips F 264.0 99 trips F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.5 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 15.1 C 30.9 D 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-93 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Worst Approach 13.2 B 10.5 B 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 10.2 B 0.0 A 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 12.1 B 10.9 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 9.5 A 46.8 D 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.4 A 1.4 A Worst Approach 12.4 B 22.6 C 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 12.0 B 17.8 C 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.2 A 0.7 A Worst Approach 11.8 B 17.7 C 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 22.7 C 57.7 161.1 E 23.0 C 61.4 170.2 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 26.2 C 155.0 2.59 F 26.5 C 162.9 2.66 F 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 25.1 C 21.5 C 25.0 C 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-94 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 Table 17- 30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 147.7 F 142.4 F 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 88.8 F 183.6 F 88.8 F 183.6 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 144.9 F 214.9 F 119.1 F 170.3 F 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 104.9 F 47.8 D 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 101.0 F 80.2 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 135.2 F 264.0 F 80.8 F 141.6 F 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 61.4 E 57.2 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 162.9 F 81.3 F City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-95 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 31: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 13.7 B 24.6 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 223.4 1.20 F 156.1 1.62 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 78.6 E City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-97 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 28: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 156.1 F 156.1 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 78.6 E 35.0 D At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-116 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18  WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (Existing + Project AM) o LOS C to LOS E  WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (NT + Project PM) o LOS D to LOS F MM TR-1.1 would improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in the Existing + Project weekday AM peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II). However, MM TR-1.1 would not improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in the Near-term + Project weekday PM peak hour. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2. 17.5.12 Level of Significance After Mitigation Table 17-38: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation, summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project with regard to transportation and circulation. Table 17- 34: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation Impact Impact Significance Mitigation Impact TR-1: Create a potentially dangerous new intersection (Class II). Less than significant with mitigation MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class II). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing + Project conditions (Class II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-117 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Impact Impact Significance Mitigation MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Existing + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near- Term + Project conditions (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Near- Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I Impact). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-118 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Impact Impact Significance Mitigation Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Impact TR-9: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative + Project conditions (Class I and II). Less than significant with mitigation / Significant and unavoidable MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Cumulative + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards (Class I). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-119 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Impact Impact Significance Mitigation MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable congestion management program for designated roads, highway, or freeways (Class I). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements Impact TR-12: Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (Class III). Less than significant None required Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds along roadways that exceed established LOS standards (Class II ). Significant and unavoidable MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on Dublin Boulevard MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program