No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout*March 6, 2018 Agenda Packet REGULARMEETING Tuesday, March 6, 2018 CouncilChamber,100CivicPlaza DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL A G E N D A Agendas and Staff Reports are posted on the City’s Internet Website (www.dublin.ca.gov) Agendas may be picked up at the City Clerk’s Office for no charge, or to request information on being placed on the annual subscription list, please call 833-6650. A complete packet of information containing Staff Reports and exhibits relate to each item is available of public review at least 72 hours prior to a CityCouncil Meeting or, in the event that it is delivered to City Council members less than 72 hours prior to a City Council Meeting, as soon as it is so delivered. The packet is available in the City Clerk’s Office and also at the Dublin Library. CLOSED SESSION 6:30 P.M. I.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 2 cases REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. 1.CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2.REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION 3.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3.1.Remembrance of Vice Mayor Don Biddle The City Council and the general public will have an opportunity to share thoughts and remembrances of Vice Mayor Don Biddle, who passed away on February 21,2018 following a brief, but brave battle with pancreatic cancer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and share comments. 3.2.Recognition of Dublin Library Manager Lee Jouthas The City Council will recognize retiring Dublin Public Library Manager Lee Jouthas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present the Certificate of Recognition. 3.3.Recognition of Noah Mac The City Council will recognize Dublin resident, Noah Mac, for his achievement on NBC's "The Voice." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present the recognition. 3.4.Recognition of City of Dublin 2017 Citizen, Young Citizen, and Organization of the Year, and 2018 Mayor's Award and Mayor's Legacy Award Recipients The City Council will recognize the City of Dublin 2017 Citizen, Young Citizen, and Organization of the Year, and the 2018 Mayor’s Award and the Mayor’s Legacy Award recipients. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present the Certificates of Recognition. 3.5.Proclamation for American Red Cross Month, March 2018 The City Council will present a proclamation recognizing March 2018 as American Red Cross Month. 14 March 6,2018 Dublin City Council AgendaPage of STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Present the proclamation. 3.6.2018 St. Patrick's Day Celebration Festivities Report The City Council will receive a preview of 2018 St. Patrick's Day Celebration festivities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. 3.7.Public Comment At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Councilon non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Councilmay respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the CityClerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a future City Councilagenda. The exceptions under which the City CouncilMAY discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3). 4.CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Councilwith one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Councilwho would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayorto remove the item. 4.1.Approval of the February 20, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 20, 2018 Regular City Council meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the February 20, 2018 Regular City Council meeting. 4.2.Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan and Housing Element for Calendar Year 2017 The City Council will review the Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan and Housing Element for Calendar Year 2017 in accordance with Government Code Section 65400(a)(2). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan and Housing Element Compliance for Calendar Year 2017; and, direct Staff to forward the Annual Progress Report to the California State Office of Planning and Research and the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 4.3.Authorization to Submit Applications to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Grant Funding The City Council will consider authorizing the City of Dublin's submittal of grant applications to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) grant funding programs. The Resolution would cover any grant opportunity offered by the BAAQMD for programs and projects such as bike parking and new bikeways, clean air vehicle projects, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing buildings, and trip reduction efforts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Resolution Adopt the Authorizing Submittal of Applications to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Grant Funding. 4.4.Consultant Services Agreement for Concession Operations at The Wave The City Council will consider approving a consultant services agreement with Global Management Amusement Professionals for the new concession building at The Wave. The agreement provides for a business plan, equipment layout, and one season of managed operations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Resolution Adopt the Approving an Agreement with Global Management Amusement Professionals for Concession Operations at The Wave, and approve the budget change. 24 March 6, 2018 Dublin City Council AgendaPage of 4.5.Authorization to Purchase Emergency Vehicle Equipment from Lehr Auto and Identification of Lehr Auto as a Sole Source The City Council will consider authorizing the purchase and installation of new equipment needed for Dublin Police Services to outfit six new patrol vehicles. Staff is recommending Lehr Auto for this work. Lehr Auto is the sole vendor to work directly with the specific emergency equipment used by Dublin Police Services allowing each vehicle to be configured consistently for safety and efficiency. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Resolution Adopt the Authorizing Staff to Purchase Vehicle Emergency Equipment from Lehr Auto and Identifying Lehr Auto as a Sole Source. 5.WRITTEN COMMUNICATION –NONE. 6.PUBLIC HEARING 6.1.Zeiss Innovation Center: Planned Development Zoning with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA 2017-00025) The City Council will consider the Zeiss Innovation Center project, which consists of a 433,090 square foot research and development campus comprised of two buildings, a parking structure, and associated site, frontage, and landscape improvements to be built in two phases. Requested approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 11.36 acre site, a Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1, which includes a 208,650 square foot research and development building, surface parking and related site improvements and adoption of a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and a take the following actions: a) Adopt the Resolution adopting a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Zeiss Innovation Center; b) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Resolution Zeiss Innovation Center; and c) Adopt the Approving the Site Development Review Permit for Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center project. 7.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.1.Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3) Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map 8437 (PLPA 2017-00036) The City Council will consider a request by the Applicant, Ashton at Dublin Station, to construct a residential project comprised of 220 apartment units, and related amenities including a fitness center, pool, roof top lounge, and 331 structured parking spaces on a 2.36- acre site located within the Dublin Transit Center. The proposed mix of residential units includes 22 studio units, 98 one-bedroom units, 96 two-bedroom units and 4three-bedroom units. The site has a land use designation of High Density Residential (25.1 or greater units per acre). The application includes a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, and Tentative Map for condominium purposes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving a Planned Development Resolution Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan for the Transit Center Site A-3, and adopt the Approving a Site Development Review Permit andTentative Map 8437 for the Transit Center Site A-3 Project. 34 March 6, 2018 Dublin City Council AgendaPage of 8.NEW BUSINESS 8.1.Edy Coleman Memorial Bench The City Council is being asked to approve the installation of a memorial cremation bench for longtime Heritage Park and Museums volunteer Edy Coleman in the Dublin Pioneer Cemetery. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the installation of the family's first choice bench in the Dublin Pioneer Cemetery at the family's first choice location. Or, approve the first choice bench and second choice location. If the second choice location is selected, approve the budget change for site prep work at location two. 9.OTHER BUSINESS Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). 10.ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833- 6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Mission The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities. Vision Dublin is a vibrant city committed to its citizens, natural resources and cultural heritage. As Dublin grows, it will balance history with progress, to sustain an enlightened, economically balanced and diverse community. Dublin isunified in its belief that an engaged and informed community encourages innovation in all aspects of City life, including programs to strengthen our economic vitality, and preserve our natural surroundings through environmental stewardship and sustainability. Dublin is dedicated to promoting an active and healthy lifestyle through the creation of first-class recreational opportunities, facilities and programs. 44 March 6, 2018 Dublin City Council AgendaPage of 3.1 Packet Pg. 5 3.1 Packet Pg. 6 3.2 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 1. Certificate of Recognition (Recognition of Dublin Public Library Manager Lee Jouthas) 3.3 Packet Pg. 9 3.3.a 3061 None. Page 1 Packet Pg. 10 3.4 Packet Pg. 11 3.4 Packet Pg. 12 3.4.a 3095 None Page 1 Packet Pg. 13 3.5 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 1. American Red Cross Proclamation 2018 (Red Cross Proclamation) 3.6 Packet Pg. 16 3.6 Packet Pg. 17 3.6 Packet Pg. 18 4.1 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Packet Pg. 22 4.1.a DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2018 Packet Pg. 23 4.2 Packet Pg. 24 4.2 Packet Pg. 25 4.2 Packet Pg. 26 4.2.a Packet Pg. 27 4.2.a Packet Pg. 28 4.2.a Union (Neighborhood 1): Madison (Neighborhood 2): Wilshire (Neighborhood 3): Huntington (Neighborhood 4): Fillmore (Neighborhood 5): Sunset (Neighborhood 6): Packet Pg. 29 4.2.a Packet Pg. 30 4.2.a Wexford (Neighborhood 1): Hillcrest (Neighborhood 2): Hillcrest (Neighborhood 3): Tramore (Neighborhood 4): Wexford (Neighborhood 5): Ashbourne (Neighborhood 6): Capri (Neighborhood 3): Trio (Neighborhood 4): Packet Pg. 31 4.2.a Slate (Neighborhood 5): Kingswood (Neighborhood 6): Onyx (Neighborhood 7): Quartz (Neighborhood 8) Orchid @ Schaefer Ranch (Schaefer Ranch South): Schaefer Ranch Unit 3: The Glen @ Tassajara Hills: The Knolls @ Tassajara Hills: The Bluffs @ Tassajara Hills Packet Pg. 32 4.2.a Bridgecroft (Neighborhood 1): Barnwell (Neighborhood 2): Ivy Oak (Neighborhood 3): Citron (Neighborhood 4, Phase 1): Haven (Neighborhood 4, Phase 2): Trestle (Neighborhood 5): Riverton (Neighborhood 6): Driftsong (Neighborhood 7): Fielding (Neighborhood 8): Packet Pg. 33 4.2.a Packet Pg. 34 4.2.a Packet Pg. 35 4.2.a Packet Pg. 36 4.2.a Packet Pg. 37 4.2.a Packet Pg. 38 4.2.a Packet Pg. 39 4.2.a Packet Pg. 40 4.2.a Packet Pg. 41 4.2.a Packet Pg. 42 4.2.a Packet Pg. 43 4.2.a o o o Packet Pg. 44 4.2.a Packet Pg. 45 4.2.a Packet Pg. 46 4.2.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the Attachment: 1. Annual General Plan Progress Report 2017 (Annual Progress Report on the Status of the 4.3 Packet Pg. 58 4.3 Packet Pg. 59 4.3.a «««««««««««««««««««« Packet Pg. 60 4.3.a Packet Pg. 61 4.4 Packet Pg. 62 4.4 Packet Pg. 63 4.4.a Packet Pg. 64 4.4.b Packet Pg. 65 4.4.b o o o o Packet Pg. 66 4.4.b Packet Pg. 67 4.4.b Packet Pg. 68 4.4.b Packet Pg. 69 4.4.b Packet Pg. 70 4.4.b Packet Pg. 71 4.4.b Packet Pg. 72 4.4.b Packet Pg. 73 4.4.b Packet Pg. 74 4.4.b Packet Pg. 75 4.4.b Packet Pg. 76 4.4.b Packet Pg. 77 4.4.b Packet Pg. 78 4.4.b Packet Pg. 79 4.4.b Packet Pg. 80 4.4.c \\cc-uem\users\carolines\appdata\roaming\iqm2\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\3103 3103 Packet Pg. 81 4.5 Packet Pg. 82 4.5 Packet Pg. 83 4.5.a Packet Pg. 84 4.5.a Packet Pg. 85 4.5.b Packet Pg. 86 4.5.b Packet Pg. 87 6.1 Packet Pg. 88 6.1 Packet Pg. 89 6.1 Packet Pg. 90 6.1 Packet Pg. 91 6.1.a Packet Pg. 92 6.1.a Packet Pg. 93 6.1.a Packet Pg. 94 6.1.a Site Plan Packet Pg. 95 6.1.a Access, Circulation, and Parking Packet Pg. 96 6.1.a Building Design/Architecture Packet Pg. 97 6.1.a Zeiss Innovation Center Aerial View from Dublin Blvd. Entry Plaza Area Landscape Plan Packet Pg. 98 6.1.a Public Art Compliance Packet Pg. 99 6.1.a Packet Pg. 100 6.1.a Packet Pg. 101 6.1.a Packet Pg. 102 6.1.b 1 Packet Pg. 103 6.1.b 2 Packet Pg. 104 6.1.b 3 Packet Pg. 105 6.1.b 4 Packet Pg. 106 6.1.b 5 Packet Pg. 107 6.1.b 6 Packet Pg. 108 6.1.b 7 Packet Pg. 109 6.1.b 8 Packet Pg. 110 6.1.b 9 Packet Pg. 111 6.1.b 10 Packet Pg. 112 6.1.c Packet Pg. 113 6.1.c Packet Pg. 114 6.1.c Packet Pg. 115 6.1.c Packet Pg. 116 6.1.c Packet Pg. 117 6.1.c Packet Pg. 118 6.1.c Packet Pg. 119 6.1.c Packet Pg. 120 6.1.c Packet Pg. 121 6.1.c Packet Pg. 122 6.1.c Packet Pg. 123 6.1.c Packet Pg. 124 6.1.c Packet Pg. 125 6.1.c Packet Pg. 126 6.1.c Packet Pg. 127 6.1.c Packet Pg. 128 6.1.c Packet Pg. 129 6.1.c Packet Pg. 130 6.1.c Packet Pg. 131 6.1.c Packet Pg. 132 6.1.c u ,u Packet Pg. 133 6.1.c -u 7u ;u Eu mu wu Packet Pg. 134 6.1.c Packet Pg. 135 6.1.c Packet Pg. 136 6.1.c Packet Pg. 137 6.1.c Packet Pg. 138 6.1.c Packet Pg. 139 6.1.c Packet Pg. 140 6.1.c Packet Pg. 141 6.1.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/20172:51:25PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITEII-ARCH-01.2409.000-CENTRAL-V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/20172:51:25PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITEII-ARCH-01.2409.000-CENTRAL-V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/20172:51:25PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITEII-ARCH-01.2409.000-CENTRAL-V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/20172:51:25PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITEII-ARCH-01.2409.000-CENTRAL-V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/20172:51:25PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITEII-ARCH-01.2409.000-CENTRAL-V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/20172:51:25PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITEII-ARCH-01.2409.000-CENTRAL-V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/20172:51:25PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITEII-ARCH-01.2409.000-CENTRAL-V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 5/25/2017 1:40:28 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017_Corey_Forst@gensler.com.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 11/27/2017 2:51:25 PM \\gensler.ad\projects\RevitUserModels\24703\GRAPHITE II - ARCH - 01.2409.000 - CENTRAL - V2017-1_corey_forst.rvt Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - Project Plans (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 5. Exhibit B to Attachment 3 - Color Renderings (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 5. Exhibit B to Attachment 3 - Color Renderings (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 5. Exhibit B to Attachment 3 - Color Renderings (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 5. Exhibit B to Attachment 3 - Color Renderings (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 6.1.f Packet Pg. 182 6.1.f Packet Pg. 183 6.1.f Packet Pg. 184 6.1.g PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, February13, 2018 Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 1 Packet Pg. 185 6.1.g Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 2 Packet Pg. 186 6.1.g Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 3 Packet Pg. 187 6.1.g Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 4 Packet Pg. 188 6.1.g Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 5 Packet Pg. 189 6.1.g Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Regular Meeting Page | 6 Packet Pg. 190 6.1.h Packet Pg. 191 6.1.h Packet Pg. 192 6.1.h Packet Pg. 193 6.1.h Packet Pg. 194 6.1.h Packet Pg. 195 6.1.h Packet Pg. 196 6.1.h Packet Pg. 197 6.1.h Packet Pg. 198 6.1.h Packet Pg. 199 6.1.i Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study December 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00025 Packet Pg. 200 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 1 Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration PLPA-2017-00025 December 8, 2017 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consiste to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing East period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing proje to various degrees on the certified EIR. As part of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Dubl Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telep noise and visual. The certified EIR contains mitigation measures that would be app within the project area, including the proposed project. Specifd in the Initial Study for the proposed project. The project site was also the subject of a previous Initial Stud (IS/MND) for the proposed Cisco Systems project in 2003. Cisco prior to entitlement; however, the property owner (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) decided to move forward with the General Plan and Eas amendments for the project site. In 2003, the City Council amen from High Density Residential to Campus Office and adopted the C assumed 430,090 square feet of office and Research and Developme accommodate 3,000 employees. The Cisco IS/MND was adopted by th 2003. This Supplemental MND has been prepared for the project pursuantthe rules for supplemental environmental review under Public Resources Code se Guidelines Section 15162, as described below. 2/28/2018 Packet Pg. 201 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 2 Project Description Carl Zeiss, Inc. (ZEISS) has applied for a Planned Development Zoning with a rela Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) Per Center (the proposed project). Figures illustrating the propose of this Initial Study and are referenced therein. The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 story, 208,650 gross square feet (GSF) Research and Development plaza and 663 surface parking spaces. Phase 2 would consist of an additiona 224,440 GSF R&D building with 167 surface parking spaces, and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage. At build-out, the proposed project would include two low-to-mid-rise (three-story and five- story) R&D buildings totaling 433,090 GSF and used for research, assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting office spaces. Other internal uses would include conference rooms, an employee cafeteria, and a demonstration cen ground floor. Parking would include one parking garage with 1,2 parking spaces, for a total of 1,396 spaces. Other miscellaneou a utilities enclosure, trash/ recycling enclosure, nitrogen pad loading areas and landscaping. Seasonal wetlands are located on 1.03 acres of the project site topographic depressions where seasonal inundation and/or saturat season. Vegetation within the seasonal wetlands is sparse, and predominantly non-native grasses and forbs, all of which are ada disturbance. Implementation of the proposed project would result 0.45 acres of seasonal wetlands and preserve the remaining 0.58 In addition to the seasonal wetlands, two locally rare plant species were and California dock. The project site would accommodate approximately 1,500 employees at build out. To help reduce drive-alone trips, the Applicant has agreed to implement Management (TDM) Program with a goal of reducing travel trip by 20% from the estima average daily trips as identified in the Traffic Consistency Ana 2017). Trip reduction measures to be considered may include the following: Provide complementary BART and bus passes and provide guaranteed services for emergencies. Provide dedicated on-campus parking (5% of supply) for high occu (HOVs). Provide staggered working hours. Provide additional bike racks and lockers on-campus, including s 2/28/2018 Packet Pg. 202 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 3 Conduct educational outreach and marketing to promote the use of options for commuting by having an on-site TDM kiosk and TDM coo The proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan Plan Land Use Designation of Campus Office. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached has been planned for urbanization since the Eastern Dublin EIR a subsequent addenda in May 1993 and August 1994). The project site was also the subject of a previous IS/MND for t project in 2003. Cisco withdrew their application prior to enti owner (Alameda County Surplus Property Authority) decided to mov Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (ESDP) amendments for the Council amended the General Plan and EDSP from High Density Resi and adopted the Cisco IS/MND which assumed 430,090 square feet o accommodate 3,000 employees. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified various environmental impacts, and mitigations were adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and S impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation me Eastern Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Sy applicable to the project and project site continue to apply to further discussed in the attached IS/Supplemental MND. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that a Supplemental Miti Negative Declaration is appropriate for this Project. The City of Dublin has determined that a Supplemental MND is the for the project. The proposed project is consistent with the ge for the project site (commonly referred to as Site 15A) and is s square foot research and development project analyzed in the Cis the IS/Supplemental MND for the proposed project, the City has detea Supplemental MND is required. Because the Cisco Systems IS/MND was prepared in 2001, updates t cultural (historic) resources and transportation/traffic are inc MND to confirm previous findings. It was concluded that biologi environmental issue where a potential new significant impact cou impact has been analyzed and mitigation proposed as described in 2/28/2018 Packet Pg. 203 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requirin review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determ is required for this project. This is based on the following an a)Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or mo impacts? There are no substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the p project site is not a substantial change from the Cisco Systems not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional measures are required. b)Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the projec involving new or more severe significant impacts? The only substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Ci Eastern Dublin EIR relates to biological resources located on the CEQA documents did not identify any biological resources on the of the site have identified wetlands and certain protected plant site. The proposed project may cause significant impacts on these resources. Therefore, a Supplemental MND has been prepared to analyze these impacts and measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant. This attached Initial Study/Supplemental MND. c)Is there new information of substantial importance, which was no not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows t have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are n Applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures conside those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant Applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached IS/Supplemental MND, there is no n a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified documents except for biological resources (as discussed above). further analyzed based on the Section 106 Report prepared by the as required for their federal permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed fill of wetlands. However, this additional information does not identify any new o project on cultural resources. A traffic consistency analysis a project. The traffic analysis does not identify any new or sign transportation. All previously adopted mitigations continue to 2/28/2018 Packet Pg. 204 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center Supplemental MND | Page 5 CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations a proposed development on the project site for all areas except bi d) Should a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration A Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required becaus mitigation measures for biological resources. Other than biolog new or substantially more severe significant impacts of the proj in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND, as documente IS/Supplemental MND. Conclusion This Supplemental MND is prepared pursuant to Public Resources C CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 based on the attached IS/Supplemen determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND potential environmental impacts for the project site, except for documented in the attached IS/Supplemental MND. This Supplemental MND will be circulated for public review for 30 days in accordance with CEQA requirements. The IS/Supplemental MND, Eastern Dublin EIR, Cisco Systems IS/MN above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin C Dublin CA. 2/28/2018 Packet Pg. 205 6.1.i Zeiss Innovation Center Initial Study/ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration December 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00025 Packet Pg. 206 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page i Table of Contents Background & Project Description 1 Environmental Checklist 8 Determination 11 Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses 12 Appendices A Biological Resources Assessment Report (WRA, 2017) Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the B Clean Water Act (WRA, 2017) C Rare Plant Survey Report (WRA 2017) D Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010 (TRA 2017) Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis (Kimle-Horn & E Associates, 2017) List of Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location Figure 2a: Site Plan Phase 1 Figure 2b: Site Plan Phase 2 Figure 3: Preliminary Landscape Plan Phase 1 Figure 4: Existing Wetlands Figure 5: Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan Phase 1 Figure 6: Preliminary Utility Plan Phase 1 Figure 7: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan Phase 1 Figure 8: Conceptual Renderings Note: All figures are included at the end of the document. List of Tables Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards Packet Pg. 207 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 1 Zeiss Innovation Center Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Title Zeiss Innovation Center Lead Agency Name and Address City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Contact Person and Phone Number Martha Battaglia Associate Planner Phone: 925-452-2152 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov Project Location & Setting The project site is in eastern Dublin, on the northeast corner o Road in the City of Dublin, CA, and encompasses 11.36 net acres 00). See Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location. The project site is currently vacant, relatively flat and contains native and introduced species of grass. There a southwest corner of the Central Parkway and Park Place intersect located off-site and five are located within the project boundar on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine separate top seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rainy sea seasonal wetlands is sparse, and dominated by a mixture of predo and forbs. The project site is bordered by Central Parkway to the north, Pa Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the west. The projeccommonly referred to as Site 15A. Packet Pg. 208 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 2 Property north of Site 15A has been developed with an office com property east of the project site was developed as the Sybase Co complex, then as the SAP regional office, and is currently unocc project site is developed with commercial uses. Properties west undergoing development as residential uses (Boulevard). Carl Zeiss, Inc. Site 15A (Northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road) APN: 986-0014-010-00 Dublin, CA 94568 General Plan Designation Campus Office Specific Plan Designation Campus Office Zoning PD Planned Development- Campus Office Project Context The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific P an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Amendm Specific Plan (SCH # 91103064), certified by the City Council in51-93 and Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994. This document is Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." The project site was also the subject of a previous Initial Stud (IS/MND) for the proposed Cisco Systems prepared in 2001. Cisco prior to entitlement; however, the property owner (Alameda Count Authority) decided to move forward with the General Plan and Eas amendments for the project site. In 2003, the City Council amen from High Density Residential to Campus Office and adopted the C assumed 430,090 square feet of office and Research and Developme accommodate 3,000 employees. Cisco IS/MND was adopted by the City Council in April 2003. - as shown on the Dublin Zoning Map (as amended through December 9, 2014). Tpus Offias shown on the Dublin General Plan Land Use (as amended through October 6, 2015). Packet Pg. 209 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 3 Subsequent Technical Studies off the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, it relies on the technical studies and analysis presented in those prior CEQA doc analysis, three additional technical studies were completed in s project application. These are summarized below. Biological Resources Subsequent to the certification of the Cisco IS/MND, and as part with the current Zeiss development application, nine seasonal we were identified. As a result, the project site was surveyed for biological resou in April 2017. In addition to the seasonal wetlands, two locall identified, namely; Th analysis were documented in a Biological Resources Assessment Report (2017), D Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Survey Report (WRA 2017), and are included as an appendix to thiIS/Supplemental MND. Cultural Resources As part of the regulatory federal permit application for the pro project site was conducted by Tom Origer & Associates. The resu research did not identify any historic resources. analysis is documented in a Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010, appendix to this IS/Supplemental MND. Traffic Consistency Analysis Kimley-Horn & Associates prepared a Traffic Consistency Analysis h the traffic impacts analyzed in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and Eastern Dublin EIR. The Traffic Consistency Analysis conclu would generate less traffic than previously analyzed and no new project would accommodate 1,500 employees, as compared to the es analyzed for the Cisco project. The Traffic Consistency Analysi this IS/Supplemental MND. Project Description Carl Zeiss, Inc. (ZEISS) has applied for a Planned Development Zoning with a rela Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) Per Center (the proposed project). Figures illustrating the propose of this IS/Supplemental MND. ZEISS is an internationally leading technology enterprise operat optoelectronics industries. The ZEISS Group develops, produces technology, microscopes, medical technology, eyeglass lenses, ca Packet Pg. 210 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 4 binoculars and semiconductor manufacturing equipment. The new Z Dublin would bring together scientists and researchers as well as operations from multiple business groups under one roof. Research and development groups Diagnostics of Medical Technology, 2) ZEISS 3D X-ray microscopes (XRM) research and industry, 3) Semiconductor & Electronics process control systems and 4) Corporate Innovation & Research; would be brought together in the new center. For the Medical Technology Business Group, the Zeiss Innovation Center would als asthe headquarters for its U.S. subsidiary which represents all ZEISS Medical Technology in the U.S. Building Program The proposed project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 story, 208,650 gross square feet (GSF) R&D building (approximately 62 with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces (see Figure 2a: Site Plan Phase 1). Phase 2 would consist of an additional five-story, 224,440 GSF R&D build82 feet in height to roof and 97 feet to the top of the screen), and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage (see Figure 2b: Site Plan Phase 2). At build-out, the proposed project would include two low-to-mid-rise (three-story and five- story) R&D buildings totaling 433,090 GSF and would be used for testing, light assembly and dry laboratories, and supporting office spaces. Other internal uses would include conference rooms, an employee cafeteria, and a dem showroom on the ground floor. At build-out parking would includ 1,229 spaces and 167 surface parking spaces, for a total of 1,396 spaces. O exterior features would include a utilities enclosure, trash/rec enclosure, bike storage enclosure, loading areas and landscaping The proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan Campus Office. Landscaping As shown in Figure 3: Preliminary Landscape Plan Phase 1, the primary landscape features are located on the north side of the Phase 1 building. This would i enhanced seasonal wetland (W6) and a surrounding buffer planted plants. An impervious pathway would also be constructed within seasonal wetland. West of the seasonal wetland is a 20-foot wide pedestrian boardwalk, landscaped garden, and permanent water feature. South of the Ph would include shrubs surrounding a landscaped bio-retention basi also be planted around the perimeter of the project site. The project site currently contains nine seasonal wetlands that acres as shown in Figure 4: Existing Wetlands. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to 0.45 acres of seasonal wetlands. Packet Pg. 211 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 5 avoid and enhance the largest 0.58-acre seasonal wetland (W6) by vegetation, and preserving an upland buffer around its perimeter Site Access & Circulation For both phases of development, primary access to the project si south of Central Parkway. A second service entrance would be from an easement through a dr parking lot accessed from Park Place, just north of Dublin Boule be limited to service deliveries and emergency vehicles. The project site would accommodate approximately 1,500 employees at build out. To help reduce drive-alone trips, the Applicant has included as part of Demand Management (TDM) Program with a goal of reducing travel t estimated average daily trips as identified in the Traffic Consi December 2017). Trip reduction measures to be included to reach chosen from the following: Provide complementary BART and bus passes and provide guaranteed services for emergencies. Provide dedicated on-campus parking (5% of supply) for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs). Provide staggered working hours. Provide additional bike racks and lockers on-campus, including s Conduct educational outreach and marketing to promote the use ofautomotive options for commuting by having an on-site TDM kiosk and TDM coo The project Applicant also has committed to providing a shuttle Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This shuttle would access the p south of Central Parkway. Shuttles would pick-up and drop-off in Infrastructure and Utilities Detailed engineering design has been completed for Phase 1 and c Subsequent Phase 2 building plan level review and approvals woul engineering design. Grading The project site is essentially flat, sloping slightly downward southwest. Earthwork would include minimal grading and contouri drainage and elevation requirements. Grading would result in el from 354 feet (above mean sea level) in the northeast corner, to 500 Boulevard (nine-foot grade change in elevation). The project would require the cut of 9, Packet Pg. 212 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 6 cubic yards of soil, and the import of 9,000 cubic yards of soil; for a net export of 500 cubic yards. See Figure 5: Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan Phase 1. Water Existing domestic water mains available for connection adjacent Boulevard, a main on Central Parkway, and a main on Arnold Road. As part of the proposed project, a new domestic water service la from Arnold Road to the Phase 1 R&D building. Phase 2 would tie extensions. The proposed project would utilize an existing recycled water main on Dublin Boulevard service line stubbed onto the property from Dublin Boulevard. recycled water for landscape irrigation. Sewer Boulevard, with Central Parkway. A new proposed sanitary sewer lateral would connect with the exist. See Figure 6: Preliminary Utility Plan Phase 1. Stormwater The project site is currently almost entirely pervious. Because replacing greater than 10,000 square feet of impervious area, it Project, and would be required comply with Provisions C.3 (New D Redevelopment) of the State Water Resources Regional Water Quali Because the project would create or replace more than one acre o also be required to incorporate hydromodification management mea Per the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (BKF, 2017), cons project would create 352,306 square feet of impervious surface a area required to meet Alameda County C.3 requirements (4% of effectiv square feet. The project is providing 12,461 square feet of bio-retention are County C.3 Technical Guidance Manual allows bio-retention areas combination flow and volume method. Providing ponding height all the overall footprint area of the bio-retention planter. Impervious surfaces include building rooftops, roadways, surface parking garage. As shown in Figure 7 Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan Phase 1, most of the stormwater run-off would gravity flow via underground southwest corner of the project site, where it would then be pum foot primary bio-retention basin and be treated. During heavy s the design treatment flow would bypass this primary bio-retentio adjacent storm drain pipe located in the Dublin Boulevard right-of-way. Packet Pg. 213 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 7 The initial sizing of this basin is based on a minimum of four p impervious area and has been adequately sized to accommodate the requirements necessary for the construction of Phase 2 as well. To assist in maintaining and enhancing the overall environmental wetland (W6), a separate drainage management system would be constructed. drainage from 18,500 square feet of northwest corner of the Phase 1 building would be directed to 752 square feet secondary biorentention basin that w landscape feature in the adjacent garden. Drainage from this po treated and gravity flow into the adjacent wetland. Both biofiltration basins have been conceptually designed to be constructed with 18-inces of sandy loam soil over 12-inches of drain rock. Like the primary biofiltration basin, excess stormwater during heavy storm events would drain from two inlets side of wetland, Project Approvals PD-Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans The Applicant has proposed a PD-Planned Development zoning for S5A. Existing zoning for Site 15A is Planned Development-Campus Office. The proposed PD- would include a Development Plan that would establish standards the future use, development, improvement and maintenance of the in accordance with Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. As part of the PD-Planned Development zoning application, a Stag Plan has been prepared for City approval describing in detail th program for the proposed project. Details of the development pl Site Development Review Permit Approval of a Site Development Review Permit is also required as process for the project, pursuant to Chapter 8.104 of the Dublin purpose of Site Development Review is to promote orderly, attrac development within the City and to ensure compliance with all ap regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Packet Pg. 214 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially aff involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Biological Resources Cultural Resources Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Geology / Soils Materials Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Utilities / Service Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Instructions 1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No New Imp are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agenc parentheses following each question (see Source List, attached)." answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sou impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved ( outside a fault rupture zone). A "No New Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, base specific screening analysis). 2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, incl as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as wel construction as well as operational impacts. 3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical i then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is p significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less than Packet Pg. 215 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 9 be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significa the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. y describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they r a less-than-significant level. 5.Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, pro CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, identify the following on attached sheets: a.Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state wher for review. b.Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the a were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier d pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such e addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c.Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significan Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were inco refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they a specific conditions for the project. d.there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the impact area beyond what h analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CE for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environm required for the impact area. 6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist r information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, w include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is 7.Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8.This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use however, lead agencies should normally address the questions fro that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatev 9.The explanation of each issue should identify: the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate o Packet Pg. 216 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 10 and the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact o significance 10.Have California Native American tribes traditionally and cultura project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows t lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of en identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultura reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may a from the Califo Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Histori Information System administered by the California Office of Hist Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) c specific to confidentiality. Packet Pg. 217 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 11 Based on this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant ef and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significa environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significpotentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at l adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicabl has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required due to changed X circumstances and new impacts to biological resources (wetlands plant species). For all other environmental impact areas, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or N pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or m earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental review is required. CITY OF DUBLIN _________________________________ _____________________________ Date Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner Packet Pg. 218 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 12 Aesthetics Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and consists of generally flat land w north to south, towards the I-580 freeway. The Eastern Dublin E "valley grasslands," which are located on the areas near I-580 i portion of Eastern Dublin. None of the major visual features id (hillsides and ridges or watercourses) exist on the project site The project site is not located within a scenic corridor as iden The nearest scenic corridor to the project site is the I-580 fre approximately a third of a mile south of the project site. Regulatory Framework Dublin General Plan The project site is included in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Implementing Po General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of acc ridgelands." Further, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." Packet Pg. 219 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 13 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDS development of approximately 7,200 acres of land in the eastern includes several policies and programs dealing with visual resou to protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, an Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintain travel corridors and public spaces. Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other import resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be loc of the back- - no d. Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for visible from designated scenic corridors. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to r resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to st development (IM 3.8/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation req developers to establish visually distinct communities which pres the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and main major travel corridors. Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area ( less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implem use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural featur adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and a project and cumulative level. Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (I less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implem use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural featur Packet Pg. 220 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 14 IM 3.8/F analyzed alteration of the visual character of the East mitigation measures were identified and the impact was identifie unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vi less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require prot open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey identify and map viewsheds. Cisco Systems IS/MND The Cisco Systems IS/MND contains one mitigation measure to redu impacts. This includes: Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce potential glare impacts. The m requires pole-mounted street lights to be equipped with cut-off lenses and oriented down toward interior streets to minimize unwanted light and glar security lighting and other lights would be required to be direc exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare manufacture. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable m aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Scenic vistas, views No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would convert vacant site to an urban use. This potential impact was addresse Plan (EDSP EIR (Impact 3.8C, Obscuring Natural Features and Impa Character of Flatlands) and it was determined that no mitigation impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the EIR con potentially significant irreversible change and a Statement of O adopted for this impact. The impacts of the proposed project wi within the scope of the impacts associated with the project cove The proposed project would not change the urban scale of develop Eastern Dublin EIR for this project site. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be n severe significant impacts to scenic vistas beyond what has been EIR and Cisco IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplementa Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this (b) Scenic resources No New Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to the I-580 freeway, w designated scenic highway, nor is it located adjacent or near otg Packet Pg. 221 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 15 Tassajara Road or Fallon Road and is therefore not within a scenare anticipated since the project site is not located near an identi consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the project si No New Impact. The proposed project would consist of three buildings. During P story R&D building would be constructed with a height of approxi62 feet to the roof. As part of Phase 2, a second five-story R&D building that is approx82 feet in height to roof and 97 feet to the top of the screen, and a separate five-story height of approximately 60 feet would be constructed. Perspective views of the proposed project are shown in Figure 8: Conceptual Renderings. These proposed land uses, and their building height and scale, ad uses in the surrounding area. For example, the former Sybase of adjacent to the project site) consists of two six-story building office buildings are located directly north or the project site buildings are consistent in use, visual character, scale, mass a proposed project. Additionally, this impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EI Statement of Overriding Considerations. The proposed project wo scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for t additional discussion or analysis is necessary. The impacts of to degradation of existing visual character and quality are with associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i the project site or surrounding area beyond what has been analyz and Cisco IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supplemental re no further environmental review is required for this impact area (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount o glare due to new street lighting, parking lot lighting and build instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aest over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, streets and intended to be lighted. Mitigation Measure 1 from the Cisco Systems IS/MND was included to reduce spillover of lighting impacts to a level of less-than-sig Packet Pg. 222 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 16 Similarly, glass may be used as one of the primary exterior mate Depending on the type of glass used, potential glare could resul roadways. Mitigation Measure 1, would also reduce potential gla significant level. Consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND, th comply with Mitigation Measure 1. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be n severe significant impacts to light and glare beyond what has be Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND and no other CEQA standards for supp Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Packet Pg. 223 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 17 Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the project site is an "approximate urbanized area" and is therefore not prime farmland. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Figure project site is encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservati Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to section. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts rela Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin and the Tri identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance with of the General Plan and Specific Plan. This was also noted as at 3.1/F stated that buildout of Specific Plan land uses would have impact on cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. indirect impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contra. This impact was also identified as an insignificant impact. Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-c) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning No New Impact. The project site was previously used for governmental purposes a identified as prime farmlands in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No imp regarding prime farmland or loss of agricultural production. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems Ino new or substantially more severe significant impacts to farmland or analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmenta impact area. Packet Pg. 224 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 18 Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Air Quality Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impacts Incorporated Impact Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon . Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Environmental Setting Dublin is in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the basin, state dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead are met. Sta pollutants, including ozone and suspended particulate matter (PM portion of the basin. Regulatory Framework Bay Area Air Quality Management District The agency for air pollution control for the basin is the Bay Ar District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD is responsible for controlling em Packet Pg. 225 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 19 stationary sources and maintaining air quality monitoring statio BAAQMD, in coordination with Metropolitan Transportation Commiss Bay Area Governments, is also responsible for developing, updati Area Clean Air Plan for the basin. A Clean Air Plan is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattai California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The term non-attainme air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are ex once submitted to and approved by the Air Resources Board, becom State Implementation Plan. A State Implementation Plan is a federal requirement; each state existing air quality conditions and measures that would be follo national ambient air quality standards. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to r impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced impacts related to emissio generated dust to a less-than-significant level by requiring con water graded areas in the late morning and end of the day, clean adjacent streets daily, covering of haul trucks, avoiding unnece construction equipment, revegetating graded areas and similar me Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulativ vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11IB) but not significant level. These mitigations require emission control f completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and unav Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) (IM 3.11/C) but not significant level. These measures require coordination of growt plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a p adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C remained significant Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulativ stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emiss feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emiss significant and unavoidable. Packet Pg. 226 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 20 Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable air quality mitigation previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Consistent with air quality plans No New Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan the BAAQMD, since the proposed amount of development has been inclu planned growth as part of General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific P Clean Air Plan. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant io air quality plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. (b) Violate air quality standards No New Impact. Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the including grading and excavation, could result in exceedances of established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Eas Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.111A and B). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0, M contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Bay Area Air Quality Man requirements, short-term project-level air quality impacts would mitigation measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust durin activities and mandate that construction equipment be kept in pr With adherence to these mitigation measures and regulatory requi impacts would be less-than-significant, and no additional analys Dublin EIR concluded that potential cumulative air quality impac equipment could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant impa Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. Similarly, potential air quality cumulative impacts related to m and NOx, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary sourc exceed regional air quality standards even with mitigation measu Statement of Overriding Considerations (Eastern Dublin EIR Impac quality impacts of the proposed project are within the scope of the Cisco MND and the Eastern Dublin EIR, for which a Statement was adopted for long-term, cumulative impacts. Packet Pg. 227 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 21 With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable re would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. (c) Cumulatively considerable air pollutants No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies Mobile Source Emissions and St Source Emissions related to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin irreversible impacts. Generally, such impacts are based on vehi traffic within the sub-region as well as from stationary sources proposed project are within the scope of the project impacts cov Eastern Dublin EIR, for which a Statement of Overriding Consider term impacts. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. (d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or c No New Impact. There are no sensitive receptors (e.g. residential, schools, chu proposed or surrounding the project site. Therefore, no impact receptors. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant ipollutant concentrations or creation of objectionable odors beyond what ha Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Packet Pg. 228 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 22 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impacts Incorporated Impact Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Environmental Setting Wetlands and Other Waters As shown in Figure 4: Existing Wetlands, seasonal wetlands are located on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine separate topographic depressions and/or saturation occur during the rainy season. Vegetation wit Packet Pg. 229 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 23 sparse, and dominated by a mixture of predominantly non-native g are adapted to high levels of disturbance. Special Status Species Special-status Plant Species Based on field surveys conducted by WRA, Inc. in April 2017, two Congd Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) and California dock (Rumex californicus), were observed on the project site. Ten square feet of Californ identified on the northwestern edge of the largest seasonal wetl Congd observed sporadically throughout the project site. Special-status Wildlife Species Based on field surveys conducted by WRA, Inc. in April 2017, two Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) have been observed or have the potential to occur in the project area Regulatory Framework Federal and California Endangered Species Acts The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits fede permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the cont animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened o federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project tha plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with t Wildlife Services (USFWS) under Section 7(a)(2) of the FESA. In state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that d permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Se permit. The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the Ca Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CE expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection fo remains part of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. To align categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened spec plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protec threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The Califo (CDFW) implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Da alifornia Natural Diversity Database, a computerized inventory o the C general location and status of California's rarest plants, anima Packet Pg. 230 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 24 During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international tr States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, the activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, sellin authorized in the regulations or by permit. The USFWS administe California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in S the Fish and Game Code (FGC). All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturban States Code [USC], section 703, et seq.) and California statute eagle and bald eagle are also afforded additional protection und amended in 1973 (16 USC, section 669, et seq.). Waters of the United States Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the U.S. ar Federal Regulations as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate wat wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including we CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three crit as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetat wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a suffici characterized by an ordinary high water mark, and herein referre Non-wetland waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers of fill material into Waters of the U.S. generally requires an i from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the State - all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibilit headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vuln systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction i that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State W Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material Packet Pg. 231 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 25 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that under other federal jurisdiction and have the potential to impac required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certifica proposed project does not require a federal permit but does invo may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to r biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. Th Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direc 3.7IA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations requ habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation manag enhancement plans for open space areas and development of a reve disturbed areas that remain undeveloped. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced indirect impacts related to v (IM3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less-than measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future dev impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of i sedimentation plans and similar actions. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the California tiger salamander, western pond turtle and tri-colored a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstr species and protection of impacted habitat areas. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0 reduced impacts related to American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. preconstruction surveys and a minimum buffer of 300 feet around nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during the bree Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special s 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires s for these species during appropriate times of the year. Packet Pg. 232 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 26 Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable b measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for t modified below. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or speci Special Status Wildlife Species Mammals Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As determined in the project site survey conducted on April 12, 2017 by WRA, Inc., the project area is not currently inhabited by Western burrowing owls. Due to a moderate potential of the speci burrows, the project area has the continued potential to support of the proposed project could result in the displacement of burr activities, and once completed could result in the removal of su Permanent loss of occupied burrows and habitats would be conside This potential impact was previously identified in the Eastern D measure was included in the EIR. That mitigation measure is bei IS/Supplemental MND as MM BIO-1. Implementation of MM Bio-1 wou potentially significant impact to the Western burrowing owl to a replaces the mitigation measure in the Eastern Dublin EIR. MM BIO-1 Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other per involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepar acceptable to the Community Development Department that demonstr the following: Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project App biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Wester project site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior t and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of init surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Dep (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed Packet Pg. 233 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 27 Implement Avoidance Measures If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first gro project Applicant shall implement the following avoidance or mit phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, fro August 31. Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season migratory resident burrowing owls. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industr development. Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and not collapse burrows. Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nu where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., site nesting owls, designated use areas). Conduct Burrow Exclusion If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, disturbing activities, the project Applicant, in consultation wi Fish and Wildlife, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Wild Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible a in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or bu Applicant shall consult with the CDFW to develop a detailed miti replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowin by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the p accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbi Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on a project site survey conducted by WRA, Inc., two locally rare species were observed i Packet Pg. 234 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 28 tarplant and California dock. The and California dock within the project area would be considered a potentially significant i site, occurring in seasonal wetlands and mesic areas. California dock were also observed on-site and may be disturbed. Disturbance or removal of wetland habitat could pote special status species, which would be considered a potentially Implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce this potentially Tarplant and California dock to a less-than-significant level. MM BIO-2 Collect Congdon Prior to obtaining the first grading or building permit for deve subsurface disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance w Conduct Rare Plant Surveys The project Applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to condu project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance w to special-status plant species shall be avoided to the maximum supports special-status plant species shall be preserved. Rare p at the proper time of Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods of physiological development that are necessary to ident concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures Where surveys determine that special-status plant species are pr tarplant and/or California Dock Seed Stock) shall be avoided whe establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-distu including construction of new facilities, construction staging, Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall regulatory agency standards prior to construction activities aro the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard or exclusion fencing or its equivalent. Where avoidance of impacts plant propagules shall be collected from these species. Under th botanist, seed or plant propagules shall be harvested from at le areas of impact. Packet Pg. 235 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 29 The project Applicant shall follow the mitigation guidelines as County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; 2010), including: An adequate floristic survey of the site shall have been complet 3 years (under normal rainfall conditions), and spatially explic focal plant population shall be available. To mitigate impacts on a plant population, a parcel where the fo may be acquired An assessment of the plant population on both the impact site an mitigation site shall be conducted by a qualified botanist. The shall be equivalent in terms of population size and vigor than t the project site. As identified in table 3-12 of the EACCS, mitigation for focal p Livermore Valley Mitigation Area is 5:1 and refers to the size os affected or protected. The qualified botanist shall demonstrate that the harvested seed surviving at a rate pursuant to the EACCS. The Applicant will su report to the City of Dublin, which details monitoring methods a establishment, and reporting protocols. The plan shall be develo City of Dublin prior to the start of local construction activiti included in the plan if it appears the success criterion will no Monitoring reports shall include photo-documentation, planting s map, descriptions of materials used, and justification for any d plan. Nesting Birds Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project includes construction activities that may affect nesting birds including which would require grading and vegetation removal. Loggerhead shrike is a special-status bird known to nest in the project area. Trees, fresh emergent wetland could provide potentially suitable habitat for this species, whi and the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Project activities that may affect nesting birds vegetation removal and ground disturbance activities which would vegetation removal. Therefore, implementation of the proposed pr of active nests, which would be considered a potentially signifi bird species and birds protected under the MBTA. This potential impact was previously identified in the Eastern D measure was included in the EIR. That mitigation measure is bei IS/Supplemental MND as MM BIO-3. Implementation of MM BIO-3 wou potentially significant impact to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level and replaces the mitigation measure in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Packet Pg. 236 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 30 MM BIO-3 Protect Birds Covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Prior to obtaining the first site, building or other permit for the timing identified below, the project Applicant shall prepare to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compli Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and veg nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project Applicant to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance would var conditions at the project site, but is usually at least 50 feet, Note that this mitigation measure does not apply to ground distu removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (Sep With adherence to these new direct impacts to sensitive or special-status species would reduce impacts to less-than-signifi addressed specifically above, there would be no new or substanti impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental revie further environmental review is required for those other impact (b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, natural community, or wetlands Potential Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on site surveys by WRA in April 2017, 1.03 acres of seasonal wetlands were identified. Implementation would result in permanent impacts to 0.45 acres of seasonal wetl remaining 0.58 acres. without first obtaining permits and approvals from the federal a wetlands waters of the State would result in a potentially signi Implementation of MM BIO-4 would reduce this potentially signifia less-than-significant level. MM BIO-4 Wetland Mitigation Plan Prior to obtaining the first site grading or building permit for development activities involving ground disturbance, the project Applicant shall prepare the docu Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance wi The project Applicant shall obtain all required resource agency obtain resource agency approval of a wetland mitigation plan tha wetland and waters habitat. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization me Packet Pg. 237 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 31 designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or crea which may include buying credits at a mitigation bank approved b. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters creat the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resou. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following: a)Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions b)Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the succ mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resour c)Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration o created or restored; d)An implementation schedule showing that construction or preserva areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiatio and e)A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wet dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/or an endowm approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigat (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildli No New Impact. The project site is substantially surrounded by urban developmen previously developed for governmental uses. There are no stream project site that could be used as a wildlife migration corridor anticipated regarding movement of fish or wildlife species. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i wildlife beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area.. (e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree presed habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans No New Impact. There are six existing ornamental street trees at the southwest Central Parkway and Park Place intersection. One of these trees located within the project boundary. The one tree located off-s accommodate a proposed sidewalk details of which would be shown on the on-site / off-site improvement plan submittal. All the trees are relatively small would not be considered significant and in need of protection pe Chapter 7.56.090 Tree Protection, which requires protection of certain species o have a twenty-four (24) inch or greater diameter. Packet Pg. 238 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 32 The project site is not located within the boundaries of any Hab located within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy City adopted the EACCS as guidance for public infrastructure/cap uses the document to provide input on managing biological resour priorities during public project level planning and environmenta sponsored development projects such as the project, proponents a EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the document is not mand There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation p analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CE supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmenta impact area. Source(s) CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, Staff Report on Burrowing Ow City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. WRA, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment for the Zeiss Graphit WRA, Inc. Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Unde Water Act for the Zeiss Graphite Development Project, 2017. Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? Packet Pg. 239 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 33 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the East associated EIR. Several potentially significant archeological r Specific Plan area, several which were located near the former S None of these sites have been recorded on the project site. Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guidin resources that is relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 7.7.1.A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to r cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. Thes Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the d destruction of unidentified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a level. These measures required that grading or construction act historic resources were discovered, until the significance of th ascertained. Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disr of identified historic resources to a less than-significant leve measures would include preparing site-specific archival research resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recor on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and develop programs for significant resources. Packet Pg. 240 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 34 Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 reduced impacts related to d destruction of unidentified historic resources to a less-than-si 3.9/D). These measures would include preparing site-specific ar Cisco IS/MND The Cisco Systems IS/MND identifies one mitigation measure to re cultural resources. This includes: Mitigation Measure 2 would address the possibility that undetect archeological resources might exist on the property must be reco contingency plan shall be developed in conformity with CEQA Guid 15064.5 to handle discoveries during project construction. Shou material be discovered, work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of t until a qualified archeologist inspects the discovery, and, if n for further evaluative testing and/or retrieval of endangered ma The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable c contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the projec Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Historic resources No New Impact. As part of the federal regulatory permit application, a historic project site was conducted by Tom Origer & Associates. The resu research did not identify any historic resources. Tom Origer & documented in a Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010, appendix to this Initial Study. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. (b, c) Archaeological or paleontological resources No New Impact. The project site is located near the former Santa Rita Rehabilit site and development of the project could have an impact on subs paleontological resources. This would be a potentially significIf such resources are encountered, Mitigation Measure 2 from the Cisco Systems IS/MND impacts to archeological or paleontological impacts to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to previous Mitigation Measure 2, there would be more severe significant impacts to archaeological or paleontolog been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no Packet Pg. 241 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 35 supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmenta impact area. (d) Human remains No New Impact. A remote possibility exists that human resources could be uncove project site during construction activities. This would be a poIf such resources are encountered, Mitigation Measure 2 from the Cisco S applicable regulatory requirements would reduce any potential im impacts to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to previous Mitigation Measure 2 and applicable r there would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Tom Origer & Associates. Historical Resources Survey of APN 986 Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including Packet Pg. 242 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 36 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issue drainage and erosion and potential impacts to localized soil typ Seismic The project site is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward The likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these believed to be high. Per the report prepared by Lowney Associat IS/MND, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo identified by the State of California. A surface fault rupture study was prepared in the area in 1999 a Systems IS/MND. No evidence of fault-related disruption to the in this analysis. Based on this and other recent geotechnical i Associates, a fault rupture on the project site is not anticipat Packet Pg. 243 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 37 Site Soils The project site is underlain by stiff to very stiff and sandy c (80 feet below ground surface). Near surface soils are highly e the Cisco Systems IS/MND geotechnical investigation found scatte gravelly clay, as well as abandoned utility lines and below-grad encountered at depths of 9 to 20 feet from ground surface, altho rainfall and other factors. Landform and Topography The project site is part of a broad north-south trending plain k Valley. The project site is relatively flat. Drainage Existing drainage on the project site is generally sheet flow in Regulatory Framework International Building Code The International Building Code (IBC) is the national model buil standardized requirements for construction. The IBC replaced ea (including the Uniform Building Code) in 2000 and established co guidelines for the nation. In 2006, the IBC was incorporated in Code, and currently applies to all structures being constructed codes are therefore incorporated into the building codes of loca California Building Code discussed below. The California Buildi California Building Code promulgated under the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (Parts 1 through 12) and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. L development complies with the guidelines contained beyond the CBan adopt additional building standards beyond the CBC. CBC Part 2, Building Code is based upon the 2012 International Building Code amendments, and Part 11, named the California Green Building Sta called the CalGreen Code. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to r related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan a Packet Pg. 244 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 38 Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary ef ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant lev measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facili applicable local and state building codes. Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the s earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilizatio forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engi structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, a account of potential soil failure. Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to exp 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures re specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amoun soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to nat 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures ma of site-specific designs based on follow-up geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslope removal/ reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and and subsurface slope drainage improvements. Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures inc plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate cut grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unrei appropriate compaction of fill areas and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas. Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short- related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than-sign measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the ra implementing several other specific erosion control measures. Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-t sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This installation of erosion control facilities into individual develo sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of measures. Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable g measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for t Packet Pg. 245 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 39 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Seismic hazards No New Impact. The project site is subject to ground shaking caused by regional identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which over the next few decades, buildings, utilities and other improv project site would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking Since the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo S for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Adherence to MM 3.6/1.0 through 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would ensure that new struct would comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards impacts would be less-than- significant. As part of the project, the project site is proposed to be grade roads, parking areas and other development areas. Grading would control site drainage. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-26.0 have b Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce potential geotechnical impacts to a These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specif reports and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City re proposed project would be required to be comply with the mitigat the Eastern Dublin EIR. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and regulatory re no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seism been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmenta impact area. (b) Erosion/topsoil loss No New Impact. Impacts 3.6/K and L of the Eastern Dublin EIR note that an impac constructing all the land uses identified in the General Plan an/ would be an increase of erosion and sedimentation caused by grad Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 require that project A implement interim erosion plans as part of grading permits. The required to be comply with the mitigation measures described in With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be n severe significant impacts to erosion/topsoil loss beyond what h Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for sup Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this Packet Pg. 246 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 40 (c-d) Soil stability No New Impact. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.6/A of the Eastern Dublin EIR, project A geotechnical consultant (Lowney Associates) prepared a geotechn analysis of the project site. Based on the Lowney Associates re support a similar type of building (multi-story office/R&D) as i encountered on the project site, and therefore the recommendations made by the geologist to include special grading techniques and building foundation desig required. With adherence to geotechnical recommendations by Lowney Associa Mitigation Measure 3.6/A, potential lateral spreading and relate proposed structures would be less-than-significant. There would more severe significant impacts to soil stability beyond what ha Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for sup Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this (e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including s No New Impact. The proposed development would be connected to a sanitary sewer within streets adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impa tanks. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco S There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Lowney Associates. Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Cisco System 2000. Packet Pg. 247 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 41 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Environmental Setting The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissi analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 or Cisco Systems IS/M Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems IS/MND have been approved, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for th governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public R and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is not required to b standards for supplemental or subsequent EIRs unless it constitu substantial importance, which was not known and could not have b previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a)(3)). The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely kno the prior CEQA documents for this project in 1993 and 2003. The Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regul emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debat the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulte Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid-2000s, greenhouse gas em were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenh information about potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the Cisc Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires an Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of issue is required under CEQA. Packet Pg. 248 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 42 Regulatory Framework See above for applicable regulatory setting. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dub IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GH As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is requ and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. Source(s) None. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Packet Pg. 249 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 43 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and currently contains no structures.a federal government installation, which may have involved the use hazardous material. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ES prepared for the Cisco project to assess the existence of hazardous materials from past results of the ESA are discussed below. Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guidin associated with hazards and hazardous materials that are relevan Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.1: Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly ide take appropriate action during emergencies. Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.2: Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from contaminated sites. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR Hazards and hazardous materials were not analyzed in the Eastern Packet Pg. 250 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 44 Cisco IS/MND The Cisco IS/MND identifies one mitigation measure to reduce ant and hazardous materials. This includes: Mitigation Measure 3 would address removal of asbestos wrapped p mitigation measure requires all asbestos wrapped piping be remov Site 15A prior to the issuance of a building permit. Heavy petro would also be required to be removed to the extent required by t regulatory agencies. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable h materials mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA doc project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-c) Exposure to hazardous materials, upset/accident, near school No New Impacts. Existing Hazards The ESA indicated that project site was part of an Army Base and War II. All of the buildings and related structures were demoli early 1950s. Facilities included barracks and two former diesel underground tanks and piping have been removed. However, some h hydrocarbons were discovered near one of the former fueling stat investigation. In addition, approximately 1,200 feet of metal p containing small amounts of asbestos were also discovered. Miti reduce potential health hazard impacts to a less-than-significant level. A plume of groundwater with concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE) and other solvents was also detected beneath portions of Site 15A. The source of t contamination is believed to be a former laundry facility which 1940s. A Health Risk Assessment prepared by Lowney Associates for th IS/MND, dated November 2000 concluded that the PCE contaminated pose an unacceptable risk to future office, maintenance or const contaminants are within the acceptable risk range established by Plan. Operational Hazards Apart of standard hazardous materials (e.g. cleaning supplies) t office uses, limited quantities of nitrogen would be stored and (e.g. dust removal). Although nitrogen is non-toxic, when relea displace oxygen, and therefore presents an asphyxiation hazard. Packet Pg. 251 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 45 A report with supporting floor plans would to identify the maximum quantities of hazardous materials and th accordance with the California Building Code (CBC), Section 414. Furthermore, the use of any hazardous materials would be regulat agencies, including the Alameda County Fire Department. Other m hazardous materials would also be kept on the project site, incl amounts of lawn chemicals, solvents and similar items used for b maintenance. With adherence to applicable federal, state and lo requirements, creation of a potentially hazardous condition woul With adherence to Mitigation Measure 3 and existing regulations, substantially more severe significant impacts from exposure to h what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MN standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (d) Listed as a hazardous materials site No New Impact. As described in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the Cisco project to assess the existence of hazard the property, the project site is not listed as a hazardous mate There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i listed as a hazardous materials site beyond what has been analyz and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental r no further environmental review is required for this impact area (e-f) Proximity to a public or private airport No New Impact. The project site is located northwesterly of the Livermore Munic but outside of any safety or referral zone for this airport. No regarding airport safety issues. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MN standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (g) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emerg No New Impact. Adequate emergency access has been provided via proposed drivewa adjoining streets. Due to the provision of adequate access, the emergency evacuation plans. This is consistent with the determi IS/MND. Packet Pg. 252 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 46 There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond what has been analyzed and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental r no further environmental review is required for this impact area (h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires No New Impact. The project site is currently a vacant field and is subject to g during the dry portions of the year. However, the long-term pla urbanization. Development of the project site and the surroundi Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would include adding new water line well as new fire stations and personnel. No impacts are therefore anticipated. This is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i due to wildland fires beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern D and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Th environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Lowney Associates. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soi Evaluation for the Cisco Project, November 2000. Lowney Associates. Health Risk Assessment for the Cisco Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of Packet Pg. 253 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 47 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the local ground water table level (for example, the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Environmental Setting The project site is generally flat and contains no riparian feat located on 1.03 acres of the project site and occur as nine sepa where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occur during the rai impacts on wetlands are addressed in the Biological Resources se Packet Pg. 254 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 48 The project site is located within the Tassajara Creek watershed portion of Dublin. Site drainage is by sheet flow to the south, Stormwater from the Eastern Dublin area generally flows to the s and into regional drainage facilities maintained by Alameda Coun disposal of stormwater runoff is Alameda Creek that drains into The City requires stormwater discharges to comply with San Franc Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit requirements and establishe pollution control measures as required by federal and state law. prevention measures for new development projects, such as swales and sediment control, are incorporated in the planning, design, projects with the potential to create pollutants in stormwater r The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (CWP) provides guidan to establishing programs to implement RWQCB requirements. The C the CWP and adheres to the regionally established guidelines. Ne are intended to include mechanisms into project proposals that p petroleum products, pesticides, litter and construction material system. The Zeiss Innovation Center provides 12,461 square feet water quality requirements. In addition, the new development req control measures to prevent an increase in the erosion potential the pre-project (existing) condition. The flow control requireme industrial, and residential developments that create one acre or According to information contained in the Soils, Geology and Sei Dublin EIR, no portion of the project site contains historic lan 3.6-C). The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazar (Flood Insurance Rate Map) Flood Map for the East Dublin area. Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies associated with hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the proposed project: Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. Packet Pg. 255 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 49 Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater resources that serve the community. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6: Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeabto manage water flow. Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7: Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to maximize permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such means as bio-retention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and other water permeable surfaces. Require planter strips bet street and the sidewalk within the community, wherever practical and feasible. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Disc NPDES Permit (MRP), Order No. Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted November 19, 2015. The MRP is overseen by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Provision C.3 (New Development & Redevelopment) of the MRP addresses post-construction stormwater management requiremen development and redevelopment projects that meet certain impervi thresholds. Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design, source control, and low impact development stormwater treatment measures in development to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and prevent non-stormwater discharges. MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This MRP provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project r increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. Projects that create or replace one ac area and are located within sensitive areas identified in the Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map, developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and approved by the RWQCB, are required to incorporate hydromodification management contro project design. Projects within the Community Plan area drain pr and therefore must meet the hydromodification management require Packet Pg. 256 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 50 and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface and increa over pre-project conditions. This project would have to implemen management requirements and is planning to install flow control Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains several mitigation measures to r related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan an include: Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 reduced impacts related potent 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measu drainage facilities as part of new development, requires develop drain plans for individual development projects and requires new to alleviate downstream flooding potential. Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0-50.0 reduced impacts related to los recharge area. These mitigation measures require adherence to m to protect and enhance water quality and directs the City to sup groundwater recharge efforts in the Central Basin. Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 to 55.0 reduced impacts related to pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These m mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted projects and that the City should develop community-based progra residents and businesses to reduce non-point source pollution. measures also require all development to meet the requirements o Management Practices, the City's NPDES permit and the County's U Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution. Cisco Systems IS/MND The Cisco Systems IS/MND contains one mitigation measure to redu related to hydrology and storm drainage: Mitigation Measure 5 would require the project Applicant prepare Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The mitigation measure requires the SWPPP to list Best Management Practices to reduce construction and post-constr less-than-significant level. Measures may include, but shall not be limited to revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing, use of biofilters (i measures. The SWPPP shall conform to standards adopted by the Re Quality Control Board and City of Dublin and shall be approved b Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. Packet Pg. 257 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 51 Specific development projects containing five acres or more are a Notice of lntent from the State Water Resources Control Board commencement of grading. The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable m hydrology and water quality set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR an Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a, f) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements, degr No New Impact. Construction of improvements anticipated as part of the proposed would necessitate grading and overcovering of the soil to constr connections and similar features. Proposed grading could contrito increased soil erosion into creeks and other bodies of water, off the project site. Th impact. Mitigation Measure 5, proposed in the Cisco Systems IS/ potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less-than-signi be required to comply with this mitigation measure. Compliance the National Pollution Disposal Elimination System (NPDES) Permi from stormwater runoff. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 5 and applicable regulatory no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water requirements beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Theref environmental review is required for this impact area. (b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies No New Impact. Although the currently vacant site would be converted to an urba impact has been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5/ 3.5/49.0 adopted as part of the EIR, which requires the project policies and ordinances regarding water quality and to comply wi With adherence to previous Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0 and appli requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe groundwater supplies beyond what has been analyzed in the Easter IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: erosion/sil No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR acknowledges that implementation of the E Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural drainage patt instance, proposed changes would include grading and re-contouri and filling surface drainage swales with underground pipes and c Packet Pg. 258 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 52 water runoff. However, the overall direction of stormwater flow would not significantly change. According to the hydrological information prepared for the propo rate of stormwater flow projected is consistent with the City's Dublin and complies with all regulatory requirements. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of develop Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site. Consistent with the Systems IS/MND, including compliance with regulatory requirement than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i patterns regarding erosion/siltation beyond what has been analyzed in the E and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental r no further environmental review is required for this impact area (d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: flooding No New Impact. Construction of the project would not significantly change drain within the project site area. Existing surface drainage flows w anticipated site grading. As shown in Figure 7: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan Phase 1, the storm drain improvements would be constructed to connect wng drainage improvements within the Eastern Dublin area. In addition, the p year flood elevation so no significant site flooding is anticipa The proposed project would not change the urban scale of develop Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site. The Cisco Systems I to drainage patterns related to flooding would be considered les compliance with regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i patterns regarding flooding beyond what has been analyzed in the IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are environmental review is required for this impact area. (e) Runoff exceed drainage capacity, or add pollution No New Impact. Construction of on-site improvements is anticipated to lead to g quantities of stormwater runoff. Per the Preliminary Stormwater 2017), construction of the proposed project would create 352,306 surface area. Total bio-retention required to meet Alameda County effective impervious area) is 14,663 square feet. The project is providing 12,461 square feet of bio-retention. The Alameda County C.3 Technical Guidance Manual allows b to be sized using a combination flow and volume method. Providin some reductions to the overall footprint area of the bio-retenti Packet Pg. 259 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 53 The Dublin Public Works Department determined that the amount of anticipated to be generated from the project site for the projec the approved Master Drainage Plan for the Eastern Dublin area an complies with all regulatory requirements. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of develop Cisco Systems IS/MND for this project site. Consistent with the Systems IS/MND, impacts would be less-than-significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i drainage capacity beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern D and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Th environmental review is required for this impact area. (g) Housing flood hazard No New Impact. The proposed project does not include a housing component, so th be no impacts placing housing within a 100-year flood plain. Th determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MN standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. No New Impact. and the proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this pro There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i dam/levee failure beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern D and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Th environmental review is required for this impact area. (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No New Impact. The project site is not located near a major body of water that a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since mudflows have been identified on the project site (see Figure 3. There would be no impact with implementation of the proposed pro Packet Pg. 260 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 54 There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i or mudflow beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin E no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Theref environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. BKF Engineers. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, 2017. Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? Environmental Setting The project site is presently regulated by the General Plan and General Plan and Specific Plan designates Site 15A for Campus Of a combination of developed and undeveloped properties within the area. Packet Pg. 261 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 55 Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan serves as a guide for the day-to-day physical development decisions that shape the social, economic, and environmental Area. activities that occur within the Dublin City limits, which curre City of Dublin General Plan is organized as follows: Land Use and Circulation Section: The Land Use and Circulation section includes the Land Use Element; Parks and Open Space Element; Schools, Public Lands and, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. The Schools, Publ Element is an optional Element. Housing Section: The Housing section includes the Housing Element, which is a s bound document. Environmental Resources Management Section: The Environmental Resources Management section includes the Conservation Element; Seismic Sa Element; Noise Element; Water Resources Element; and Energy Cons Water Resources and Energy Conservation Elements are optional El Community Design and Sustainability Section: The Community Design and Sustainability section includes the Community Design and Sustainability Element Element. Economic Development Section: The Economic Development section includes the Economic Development Element, which is an optional Element. Campus Office Land Use Designation Floor Area Ratio range of 0.25 to 0.80 and an employment density feet per employee. This designation is intended to provide an a for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not gene emissions, noise, odors, or glare. Allowed uses include but are administrative offices, administrative headquarters, research an commercial services, limited light manufacturing, and assembly a Ancillary uses that provide services to businesses and employees permitted. These uses include restaurants, gas stations, conven services, branch banks, and other such services. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dub IS/MND. Packet Pg. 262 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 56 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Physically divide an established community No New Impact. The project is vacant, located in an area planned for and developing with similar land uses to the project. Therefore, there would be no disruption of any established community and no impact would occur. This is consistent with th Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i community beyond those analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (b) Conflict with general plan No New Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with environmental goal policies contained in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specif No impacts would result regarding consistency with applicable land use plans and the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i City of Dublin General Plan beyond what has been analyzed in the IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or na plan No New Impact. No such plan has been adopted within the General Plan and Easter Specific Plan. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation pla community conservation plan for the proposed project. This is c determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i conservation plan(s) or natural community conservation plan(s) b analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no othe supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmenta impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Packet Pg. 263 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 57 Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Environmental Setting The project site contains no known mineral resources. Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to section. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dub IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposi exist on the project site, so no impacts would occur. This is c in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA st review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is r Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Packet Pg. 264 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 58 Noise Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Environmental Setting Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project site inclu vehicles passing the Eastern Dublin planning area on I-580, trafDublin Boulevard and from aircraft flyovers. Regulatory Framework City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured a receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria p Packet Pg. 265 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 59 location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for deter requirements. The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies "normall non-residential uses as 70 dBA or less. Noise levels over 75 dB unacceptable for new development of these types of land uses. Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60 70 70 75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61 80 71 80 Over 80 Schools, churches, nursing 60 or less 61 70 71 80 Over 80 homes Neighborhood 60 or less 61 65 66 70 Over 70 parks Office / Retail 70 or less 71 75 76 80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71 75 Over 75 -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1, 2012 Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains one mitigation measure to reduce from the General Plan and EDSP project: Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measur submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of operations and similar items. Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN The proposed project would be required to adhere to the applicab contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the projec Packet Pg. 266 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 60 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Exposure to or generation of noise exceeding standards No New Impact. Operation of the proposed project would be subject to the Genera standard of 70 dBA or less. Residential uses are subject to mor However, the proposed project does not include any residential u General Plan noise standards, operational impacts of the project permanent noise levels would be less than significant. This is in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i generation of noise exceeding standards beyond what has been ana EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplement Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this (b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise No New Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not res term increases in groundborne vibration, since office uses would vibration or noise. Therefore, this impact would be considered consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant ie vibration or ground borne noise beyond what has been analyzed in Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental revie further environmental review is required for this impact area. (c) Permanently increasing ambient noise levels No New Impact. Impact 3.10/B identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR identified fu of housing within the Planning Area to future roadway noise as s Future traffic generated by the proposed project would contribut the impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases inre within the scope of the impacts associated with the project cove and analyzed in the Cisco System IS/MND. The type and intensity part of the proposed project, and the noise generated and associ uses have been identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Spe would occur. This is consistent with the determination in the C There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i increased ambient noise levels beyond what has been analyzed in Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental revie further environmental review is required for this impact area. Packet Pg. 267 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 61 (d) Substantial temporary noise increase No New Impact. Construction of the proposed office complex would increase short levels during the construction period for the project. Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would require individual pro construction noise management plans to minimize noise to existin as adhere to construction hour limitations. Therefore, short-te would be considered less-than-significant. This is consistent w Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to required mitigation measures, there would be ne severe significant impacts from a substantial temporary noise in analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no othe supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmenta impact area. (e, f) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport No New Impact. The project site would not be affected by Livermore Municipal Ai because the airport is located approximately two miles southeast project site lies outside the airport referral area. No impacts consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i airports beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Population and Housing Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and Packet Pg. 268 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 62 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Environmental Setting From a population of approximately 14,350 in 1982, the City of D population of 53,836 (per the California Department of Finance, have a total population of 76,000 at build out. Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to section. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dub IS/MND. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Population growth No New Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the type and scale of de anticipated in the approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Spec The potential to increase substantial population growth would be considered less- proposed project does not include any residential units and the footage is consistent with the densities allowed under the Gener is consistent with the determination in the Cisco Systems IS/MND There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. Packet Pg. 269 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 63 (b-c) Housing and resident displacement No New Impact. The project site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed proj therefore displace neither housing units or people. No impacts population displacement. This is consistent with the determinat IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i displacement beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Theref environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin Web site. Accessed June 7, 2017. Available at http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/238/Community-and-Economic-Profile City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Public Services Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities o governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Packet Pg. 270 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 64 Environmental Setting Fire Protection Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire with the City of Dublin for fire suppression and emergency respo specialized response teams including a Hazardous Materials Unit, Unit, and a Water Rescue Unit. The Dublin Fire Prevention Burea inspections of new construction to ensure compliance with City c Police Protection Police and security protection is provided by Alameda County She contracts to the City of Dublin for patrol services, criminal in Dispatch services and some data processing functions are handled Oakland and San Leandro. Schools The Dublin Unified School District provides primary and secondar City of Dublin. Parks The Parks and Community Services Department develops and impleme programs for the City of Dublin. Libraries The Alameda County Library Service provides library services for Maintenance Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities City of Dublin Public Works Department. Regulatory Framework Ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed discussed in the below analysis. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR a protection include: Packet Pg. 271 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 65 Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 1.0: Provide additional personnel and fa as necessary to establish and maintain City standards for police protection ser Eastern Dublin. Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 2.0: Coordinate with the City Police Dep timing of annexation and proposed development, so that the Depar adequately plan for the necessary expansion of services to the a Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0: Incorporate into the requirements of Police Department recommendations on project design that affect crime prevention. Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 4.0: Incorporate into the requirements o Police Department recommendations on project design that affect crime prevention. Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 5.0: As a part of the development approv Dublin, the City shall require the Police Department to review and planned development with respect to: a) Project design layout r security and safety, b) Project circulation system and access is implications for emergency response times. Prior to final appro development and improvement plans, the City Police Department sh proposed use, layout, design, and other project features for pol security devices, such as alarms and lighting, visibility, and a concerns. Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 6.0: Time the construction of new facili new service demand to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first station would be sited and begin construction concurrent with initial de planning area. Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechan front costs of capital fire improvements. Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 8.0: Coordinate with Dougherty Regional ) to identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations. T Specific Plan area must be acquired prior to the approval of the in Eastern Dublin. Timing for acquisition of the subsequent sit DRFA. Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommen design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and preve requirements of development approval. Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of projec assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism i provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/ open space i Packet Pg. 272 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 66 Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 11.0: Integrate fire trails and fire bre trail system. Meet fire district standards for access roads in minimizing environmental impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 12.0: The City shall work with the Fire qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for t Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 13.0: The City shall consult with the DF number, location and timing of any additional fire station(s) ne Increment area at such time when the GPA Increment area is propo Cisco IS/MND There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mi the previous CEQA documents prepared for the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Fire No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for f emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent daytime site. This impact from development on the proposed project site Dublin EIR. Features which would be incorporated into the proje ordinances and development requirements and to assist in reducin installation of on-site fire protection measures such as fire sp hydrants and meeting minimum fire flow requirements contained in and Uniform Fire Code. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0-13.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin increased demand for fire and emergency services based on new de the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These mitiga new fire facilities in eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water s suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. The proposed with applicable programs and standards implementing previously a With such compliance and normal City fire protection requirement protection would be less-than-significant. This determination i Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and regulatory re no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to fire analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no othe supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmenta impact area. Packet Pg. 273 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 67 (b) Police No New Impact. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be should the project be approved and constructed. This increase i set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from, including the Non-Residential Security Ordinance. The project Applicant would al to adhere to applicable Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0-5.0 set fort These measures address establishing funding mechanisms for additional police personnel facilities and require the inclusion of security provisions into With adherence to previously adopted mitigation measures and Cit impacts related to police protection would be less-than-signific consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable re would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (c) Schools No New Impact. The proposed project involves the development of an office complSince this is a non-residential land use, limited and less-than-signifon local schools. Consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND, the pr required to pay fees required under State law to the Dublin Unif indirect impacts that could result from secondary inducement of the District to work within the office complex. Payment of scho mitigation of impacts under CEQA. Impacts to schools would ther There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MN standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (d, e) Parks and other facilities No New Impact. Approval and construction of the project would incrementally inc long-term maintenance demand for roads, parks, and other public faci additional maintenance demands would be offset by additional Cit revenues accruing to the City of Dublin and therefore impacts wo This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With compliance with regulatory requirements (including payment new or substantially more severe significant impacts to parks an has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, an Packet Pg. 274 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 68 for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environm this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. 2017. Fire Services and Prevention. Accessed June 7, 2017. Available at http://dublinca.gov/22/Fire-Services-Prevention. City of Dublin. 2017. Police Services. Accessed June 7, 2017. http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/91/Police-Services. City of Dublin. 2017. Schools. Accessed June 7, 2017. Availa http://www.dublin.ca.gov/401/Schools. City of Dublin. 2017. Parks and Community Services. Accessed http://www.dublin.ca.gov/90/Parks-Community-Services. City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Recreation Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Environmental Setting The project site is currently vacant and contains no parks or ot Packet Pg. 275 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 69 Regulatory Framework Ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to the proposed discussed in the below analysis. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains one applicable mitigation measur recreation impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. This Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park f parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedicati only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for act Cisco IS/MND There are no additional mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN The proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable r measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for t Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing d No New Impact. The proposed project would not result in new residences being co within the Eastern Dublin area. Therefore, there would be a lesthan-significant impact to neighborhood or regional park facilities due to limited use by e consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA st review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is r (b) Propose or require new facilities that cause physical effect No New Impact. The proposed project does not include residential development. be a less than significant impact on City park or recreational f employees. The proposed project does include on-site recreational facilities for use by employees. Therefore, no impact would result due to constructio regional park facilities caused by the proposed project. This d the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i park facilities beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dub Packet Pg. 276 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 70 no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Theref environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Transportation/Traffic Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Packet Pg. 277 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 71 Environmental Setting Existing Transportation Network The project site is served by several regional freeways and sub- roadways, including: Interstate 580 Interstate 580 (I-580) is part of the interstate freeway system and extends in an direction, from San Rafael in the west to Tracy in the east. I-580 forms the southern city boundary with four to five lanes in each direction. A high-occu exists in the eastbound direction from Hacienda Drive to the bas the east of Livermore. Interchanges near the project site inclu Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Dougherty Road Dougherty Road is a north-south principal arterial roadway and a regional significance. The roadway continues south of I-580 int Road and connects to Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon to the north. generally a four- to six-lane facility, with additional capacity accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles to and from I-580. Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the Ci a four- to six-lane facility with a landscaped median. Dublin B route of regional significance. Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-58 Las Positas Boulevard in Pleasanton to Gleason Drive in Dublin. Road to Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive is a designated princip generally provides three travel lanes in each direction with add intersections to accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles. Boulevard, Hacienda Drive is a designated minor arterial with tw each direction, with a landscaped median. Arnold Road Arnold Road is a north-south two-lane road parallel to and west currently connects Gleason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard. Arnold Road / Dublin Boulevard is currently being re-designed to right-turn lane. This improvement, which is anticipated to be c two years, is not included in the analysis. Packet Pg. 278 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 72 Gleason Drive Gleason Drive is an east-west minor arterial roadway approximately half a mile north of Dublin Boulevard that connects Arnold Road in the west to Fallon generally provides two travel lanes in each direction. Regulatory Framework Alameda County Transportation Commission The Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) does not have significance for Congestion Management Plan (CMP) land use analy within the City of Dublin have used the following criteria to as For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management P Network, the project would cause (a) the LOS to degrade from LOS (b) the volume-to-capacity ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment t operate at LOS F without the project. Complete Streets Policy The City of Dublin is committed to creating and maintaining safe travel along and across roadways that serve all categories of us emergency responders, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedh disabilities, seniors, and users/operators of public transportat Complete Streets Principals adopted by the Dublin City Council b199-12 on December 4, 2013 includes the following: 1.Complete Streets Serving All Users and Modes 2.Context Sensitivity 3.Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments 4.All Projects and Phases Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR contains mitigation measures to reduce an the General Plan and EDSP project. These measures generally inc roadways, widening of existing roadways and improvements to loca accommodate anticipated increases in the number of vehicles asso the Eastern Dublin area. With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mit the EIR. Several impacts could not be reduced to a level of ins Packet Pg. 279 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 73 These include: impacts to the I-580 freeway between I-680 and Ha impacts to the I-580 Freeway between Tassajara Road and Airway B cumulative freeway impacts (IM 3.3/E), impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N). Cisco IS/MND The Cisco IS/MND contains the following mitigation measures to r impacts. Their status is indicated in italics. Mitigation Measure 6: The project Applicant shall construct the transportation improvements near the project: Dublin/Arnold intersection: a separate right-turn lane for the s o Road approach. Hacienda/Dublin intersection: restripe the northbound Hacienda Dri o to include a third left-turn lane. (Completed) Right-turn lanes to all project driveways (Completed) o Cisco Systems Access/The Boulevard improvements, to include: Eas o approach: 1 left-turn lane; Westbound approach: 1 right-turn lan approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane. (Completed) Mitigation Measure 7: Commerce One (Sybase project) is responsib the following traffic and transportation improvements near the C improvements are also necessary for Cisco to gain access to theiIf these improvements are not constructed by Commerce One, Cisco shall be constructing the following traffic and transportation improvemen Arnold Road/The Boulevard improvements, to include Eastbound app o left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane; Westb left-turn lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane; Northbound turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, and 1 righ Southbound approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through lane. (Completed) The Boulevard/Hacienda Drive improvements, to include: Eastbound o left-turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane, 2 right-turn lanes; W approach: 2 left-turn lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane; Northbou3 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes; 1 right-turn lane; Southbound approach:2 left- turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane. (Completed) Roadway segment improvements on Arnold Road between Dublin Boule o The Boulevard (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each direc Boulevard between Arnold Road and Commerce One Mid-Block Access Six (6) travel lanes [three in the westbound direction and three Packet Pg. 280 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 74 direction]; The Boulevard between Commerce One Mid-Block Access Hacienda Drive (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in each dir(Completed) Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-b) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, inc management plans No New Impact. The Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis (T Horn, 2017) evaluated the the traffic impacts analyzed for the project site in the Cisco Systems IS/MND and the Eastern Appendix D: Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Ana). It concluded that the proposed project would generate less traffic compared to the pro Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Cisco Systems IS/MND. This is the proposed project would accommodate 1,500 employees, as compa 3,000 employees analyzed for the Cisco project. The project also includes a TDM program which will result in a 20% reduction in project vehicle trip gen Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 in the Cisco IS/MND identified sever of these improvements have been constructed except for construct turn lane for the southbound Arnold Road approach at the Dublin/ Boulevard project, located west of the project site, would be co turn lane for the southbound Arnold Road approach at the Dublin/ anticipated that this improvement would be constructed in 2018 i of Phase 1 of the Zeiss Innovation Center. According to the Traffic Consistency Analysis (TCA), all study i operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) D or better during proposed project, for all scenarios analyzed, including cumulati Parking Chapter 8.76 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of theZoning Ordinance complies with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (Ci which is designed to comply with the requirements of the America According to the TCA, the proposed parking supply for Phase 1 an exceeds the s. The project is consistent with Chapter 8.76 of the Zoning Ordinance and no new or substantially more severe signifi occur with construction of the project Driveways The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan did not evaluate the project dr Sybase Drive); therefore, a separate analysis was performed for located at Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Both intersect acceptable condition with the addition of the project traffic an Packet Pg. 281 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 75 are required. No new or substantially more severe impacts would occur with respect t driveways. Cumulative Impacts The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed cumulative traffic from potentia Dublin Specific Plan area. The City of Dublin has adopted a Tra requires developers to contribute their 'fair-share' of sub-regi required for new development within the Eastern Dublin area. Th and level of development and impacts assumed within the Specific Eastern Dublin EIR for the project site and area and is required Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. With adherence to previous Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 and requi impact fees, there would be no new or substantially more severe applicable transportation plans standards beyond what has been a EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplement Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this (c) Change in air traffic patterns No New Impact. The project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since office development and is located outside of the Livermore Airpo determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewa other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently Increases in safety incidents may occur due to the volume of vehicles and pedestrian other circulation features. The proposed on-site circulation an designed to adequately and safely distribute projected traffic f the TCA as deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. The City's Permit application ensures that the proposed development meets safety hazards, design features, on-site circulation and access, and therefore no impacts are anticipated. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i design feature beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dubl no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Theref environmental review is required for this impact area. Packet Pg. 282 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 76 (e) Result in inadequate emergency access No New Impact. The current need for emergency access is low, since there are no residents or visitors on the project site. Construction of the project site would increase the need for emergency services and emergency. If adequate access is not provided, excessive length emergency vehicles to serve the new development. For both phases of development, access to the project site would access driveway at Central Parkway/Park Place and one delivery a access driveway at Dublin Boulevard/Park Place. Park Place cont parking lot south of the primary entrance to the project site. vehicles would use the Dublin Boulevard/Park Place intersection and gain access to the project site via an easement. Since the proposed site development plan indicates that driveway requirements would be provided, potential impacts relating to in would be less-than-significant. This determination is consistent with the Ci There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (f) Conflict with adopted alternative transportation plans No New Impact. The project includes on-site bicycle parking, a bus pick-up/drop-off for an employee bus shuttle, and pedestrian connections between propose streets. Complete Streets Policy: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking spaces ADA compliant sidewalks and curb ramps Emergency Vehicle Access to the project site Therefore, there would be no impacts to pedestrian or bicycle ac transportation plans, and impacts are less-than-significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i transportation plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Easter IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are environmental review is required for this impact area. Packet Pg. 283 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 77 Source(s) City of Dublin. Complete Streets Principals adopted by the City Resolution No. 199-12, December 4,2013. City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Kimley-Horn and Associates. Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffi 2017. Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Re feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically define landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Na a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Environmental Setting The topic of tribal cultural resources was not analyzed in the E Systems IS/MND. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR iup CEQA documents, CEQA has added this topic as a new section to the App Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes 2014). The purpose of AB 52 is to include tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process to ensure that local and Tri agencies, and project proponents would have information availabl Packet Pg. 284 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 78 planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impa Cultural resources were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or Ci Regulatory Framework Per AB 52, to help determine whether a project may have such an Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Nativ consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with project. That consultation must take place prior to the release Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report f determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Previous CEQA Documents The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the East associated EIR. Several potentially significant archeological r Specific Plan area, several which were located near the former S None of these sites have been recorded on the project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of No New Impact. As part of the regulatory permit application assembled by WRA fo Applicant, a historic survey of the project site was conducted b results of the survey and archival research did not identify any analysis is documented in a Historical Resources Survey of APN 9 included as an appendix to this Initial Study. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c 5024.1 No New Impact. The City contacted the tribal representative of the Ione Band of Indians (Ltr. from M Battaglia to R. Yonemura, dated 10/13/17). There are no known significant Tribal Cultural Resources on the . If Native American artifacts are encountered during construction, work on the proje with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on t under the guidance of an approved resource protection plan. The contacted if human remains are uncovered as required by State la Packet Pg. 285 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 79 With adherence to required regulatory requirements, there would more severe significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources bey the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA stand review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is r Source(s) City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Personal correspondence, Ltr. from M Battaglia, Associate Planne Yonemura, Chairman, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, dated 10/13/17. Tom Origer & Associates. Historical Resources Survey of APN 986- Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (V.4) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it demand in addition to the provid Packet Pg. 286 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 80 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Environmental Setting The project site is served by the following service providers: Sewage treatment Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides wastewater c service to the City of Dublin. DSRSD owns and operates the Regi Facility in Pleasanton. Water supply and distribution DSRSD obtains its water supply from Alameda County Flood Control District, Zone 7. DSRSD also currently treats and distributes r in its service area. Storm drainage The City of Dublin Public Works Department oversees municipal st Dublin City limits. Solid Waste Amador Valley Industries provides solid waste and recycling coll basis to commercial and residential customers in the City of Dub Regulatory Framework There are no ordinances, regulations, or standards applicable to section. Packet Pg. 287 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 81 Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR Regarding water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified ove resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact. A 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insigni the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled carefully use water resources and that all new development in th connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an i potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigat on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These m implementation of water conservation measures in individual deve construction of new system-wide water improvements which are fun impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is t treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identi of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measu requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by impact fees. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identifie impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduc through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "wi issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potenti inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoid Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impac collection system) as a potentially significant impact that coul to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRS wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new devel DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater trea letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be cons standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact regarding extension of a to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignifica Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to acco demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G fo disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewat constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agen Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capac Packet Pg. 288 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 82 impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. No additional analysis is needed Cisco IS/MND There are no additional mitigation measures from the Cisco IS/MN Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Wastewater treatment requirements No New Impact. The addition of wastewater flows from the proposed project would the plant to exceed local, state, and federal water quality stan would not change the urban scale of development anticipated. Mi through 22.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR deals with wast treatment and disposal. With these adopted mitigation measures, impacts of the proposed project would be less-than-significant. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be n severe significant impacts to wastewater treatment beyond what h Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required (b) Require construction of new facilities No New Impact. Existing water and sewer lines would need to be extended into th site from the west. Such extensions have been planned as part o Dublin Specific Plan and have been analyzed in the Eastern Dubli required to conform to adopted Mitigation Measures 2.5/24.0 thro Dublin EIR, as applicable, regarding water service. A less-than-significant impacts would therefore result. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be n severe significant impacts to wastewater facilities beyond what Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required (c) Stormwater drainage No New Impact. As shown in Figure 7: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan Phase 1, new on- site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of Public Works Department has indicated that the proposed drainage overall drainage from the project site would be accommodated by regional drainage facilities. The proposed project would not ch development anticipated in the Cisco Systems IS/MND for this pro also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 throu Packet Pg. 289 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 83 Eastern Dublin EIR, as applicable, regarding drainage. A less-t therefore result. This determination is consistent with the Cisc With adherence to previous mitigation measures and regulatory re no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to storm beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. (d) Sufficient water supply No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would result in an increased de water for domestic and irrigation purposes, similar to water use analyzed, as identified in the Cisco IS/MND. Water use for the within the projections contained in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The increased water demand DSRSD and Zone 7 facilities and long-term supplies. Recycled wa project site for irrigation by DSRSD. The project Applicant would be required to provide any local extensions and connections to nearby facilities. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that a less-than-significant impact would therefore result. This determination is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/M standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. (e) Sufficient wastewater capacity No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would result in an increased de wastewater treatment. Presently, the project site is vacant and wastewater treatment services. DSRSD indicated for the Cisco pr wastewater treatment plant had adequate capacity to serve the pr would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in t this project site, and impacts for the proposed project would be determination in the Cisco IS/MND of a less-than-significant impact. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisc CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no f is required for this impact area. Packet Pg. 290 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 84 (f) Adequate landfill No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would incrementally increase ge solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reacthe landfill would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effe the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can is consistent with overall buildout projections. Furthermore, t adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0 through 40.0, as applicab Dublin EIR regarding solid waste disposal. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated regarding solid waste disposal. This determination Systems IS/MND. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be n severe significant impacts to landfill capacity beyond what has Dublin EIR and Cisco IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for sup Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this (g) Compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations No New impact. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that individual projects constructed under the General Plan and Easte adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. Les therefore anticipated regarding compliance with statutes and reg is consistent with the Cisco Systems IS/MND. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant i and regulations beyond what has been analyzed in the Eastern Dub and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Th environmental review is required for this impact area. Source(s) California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2017 . Accessed June 7, 2017. City of Dublin. Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dub and Specific Plan, 1993. City of Dublin. Initial Study for Cisco Systems, Inc., 2001. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. /home/showdocument?id=811. Accessed June 7, 2017. Packet Pg. 291 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 85 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No New Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of th substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eli community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of prehistory? No New Impact. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the r Resources, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not subs a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reaso Resources, the project site does not contain any significant cul to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the Packet Pg. 292 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Page 86 result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previous previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Cisco Systems standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no furthe required for this impact area. b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effe the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probab No New Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticip EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environm the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The implementation of the pro would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the s identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed Cisco Systems IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplement Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause su effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effe would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either proposed project would allow for the conversion an existing vaca specifically the construction of two low to mid-rise (3-story ana parking structure, surface parking, and related improvements, in these uses or activities would result in any substantial adverse directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document. proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the East IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are environmental review is required for this impact area. Packet Pg. 293 6.1.i City of Dublin ZEISS Innovation Center IS/Supplemental MND | Appendices Appendices The following appendices are available from the City Dublin upon A Biological Resources Assessment Report (WRA, 2017) B Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (WRA, 2017) C Rare Plant Survey Report (WRA 2017) D Historical Resources Survey of APN 986-0014-010 (TRA 2017) E Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Traffic Consistency Analysis (Kimle-Horn & Associates, 2017) Packet Pg. 294 6.1.j Zeiss Innovation Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Date February 2018 Project Name Zeiss Innovation Center PLPA-2017-00025 Project Location The project site is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road (APN 986-0014-010-00) in the City of Dublin, CA in Alameda County. Dr. Matthias Ismael Project Applicant Carl Zeiss, Inc. 5160 Hacienda Drive Dublin, CA 94568 State Clearinghouse Number 1991103064 Contact Martha Battaglia Associate Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: 925-833-6610 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov Packet Pg. 295 6.1.j City of Dublin Zeiss Innovation Center: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that al monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures ( project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant proje The MMRP identifies the following for each MM: z’z“m. In each case, a timeframe for performance of the mitigation measure, or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The measures are designed to ensure that impact-related components of Project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or assured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from local, State, and federal agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. w;­¦š“­z,Œ; t©·ä š© 5;­zm“·;7 w;¦©;­;“··zÝ;. In each case, unless otherwise indicated, the Applicant is the Responsible Party for implementing the mitigation. The City or a Designated Representative will also monitor the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. The numbering system corresponds with the numbering system used in the Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the MM has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Dublin. The completed MMRP will be kept on file at the City of Dublin Community Development Department. 9­·;©“ 5Ò,Œz“ 9Lw az·zm·zš“ a;­Ò©;­. By reference, included in this MMRP are the mitigation measures established in the Eastern Dublin Specific P are applicable to the project. Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss Attachment: 10. Exhibit B to Attachment 6 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Zeiss 6.1.k Packet Pg. 309 6.1.k Packet Pg. 310 6.1.k Packet Pg. 311 6.1.k Packet Pg. 312 6.1.k Packet Pg. 313 6.1.k Packet Pg. 314 6.1.k Packet Pg. 315 6.1.k Packet Pg. 316 6.1.k Packet Pg. 317 6.1.k Packet Pg. 318 6.1.k Packet Pg. 319 6.1.k Packet Pg. 320 6.1.k Packet Pg. 321 6.1.k Packet Pg. 322 6.1.k Packet Pg. 323 6.1.k Packet Pg. 324 6.1.k Packet Pg. 325 6.1.k Packet Pg. 326 6.1.k Packet Pg. 327 6.1.k Packet Pg. 328 6.1.k Packet Pg. 329 6.1.k Packet Pg. 330 6.1.k Packet Pg. 331 6.1.k Packet Pg. 332 6.1.k Packet Pg. 333 6.1.k STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5528 FAX (510) 286-5559 Making Conservation TTY 711 a California Way of Life www.dot.ca.gov 04-ALA-2017-00222 GTS I.D. 8915 ALA - 580 - 19.043 Packet Pg. 334 6.1.k , City of Dublin January 11, 2018 Page 2 The project site is regionally accessed 0.5 miles from the Interstate (I)-580/. Packet Pg. 335 6.1.k , City of Dublin January 11, 2018 Page 3 T Packet Pg. 336 6.1.k , City of Dublin January 11, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 337 6.1.k Packet Pg. 338 6.1.k Packet Pg. 339 6.1.k Packet Pg. 340 6.1.k Packet Pg. 341 6.1.k Packet Pg. 342 6.1.k Packet Pg. 343 6.1.k Packet Pg. 344 6.1.k Packet Pg. 345 6.1.k February 5, 2018 Martha Battaglia 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Response to Comment Letter from California Native Plant Society Dear Ms. Battaglia, The following is a formal response to the comments presented by (CNPS) in their January 30, 2018 letter to the City of Dublin. 1.Protocol-level surveys following California Department of Fish and Wildli (CDFG 2009) were conducted on May 9 and August 9 of 2017 by WRA, the methods and findings of which are contained in the Rare Plant Survey Report (August 2017). An additional site constraints survey was conducted on April 12, 2017. This site visit, though not explici assessment of the conditions and resources present at the site a During the course of these three surveys, Congdons tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) was the only CNPS-ranked rare plant encountered. 2.A formal wetland delineation was conducted by WRA on April 10, 2017; results are presented in Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (July 2017). The Study Area contains nine seasonal wetland features that total apNo vernal pools were present within the Study Area. 3.As described in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared by contains one native soil mapping unit: Clear Lake Clay (p.14). T within the Project Area are developed/ruderal herbaceous grasslandp.17). 4.As presented in MM Bio-2, Congdons tarplant within the Project Area will be avoided, w Mitigation for impacted individuals will be consistent with the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS; 2010), which outlines a 5:1 mitigation ratio based on im- 12). Under EACCS, mitigation for the loss of focal species can be acc habitat, or creating or restoring suitable habitat. Compliance with t- site location, will be approved by the Community Development Dep or building permit. Additionally, MM Bio-2 describes criteria that state the mitigation population shall be equivalent in terms of population size and vigor as the affected 5.California dock (Rumex californicus) is a common wetland plant with widespread distribution throughout montane regions in California and the west. This plant is not listed as a CNPS ranked rare plant, and is only 1. Because California dock is not listed as considered locally rare within Alameda and Contra Costa counties Packet Pg. 346 6.1.k a focal species under EACCS or a CNPS ranked rare plant, avoidance measures and a 5:1 mitigation ratio for impacted plants is sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level. 6.MM Bio-2 outlines that The Project Applicant shall follow the mitigati East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. EACCS guidelines include mitigati restoration ratios, which define criteria for assessment of successful mitigation. 7.Indirect impacts to focal species that result from post-project activities are analyzed within EACCS. Implementation of the avoidance measures outlined in EACCS table-2 and 3-3 will ensure minimization of these impacts. 8.EACCS analyzed cumulative impacts associated with projected growth within eastern Alameda County, including the East Dublin Specific Plan (1994, updated 2016) and which designated areas for development within the Dublin Planning Area Boundaries. The Project Area is within the designated Planning Area Boundary and is surrounded b Further, the Project Area was previously developed as part of the Camp Shoemaker naval facility until the late 1950s. 9.Results of the biological surveys conducted by WRA are summarized in the reports listed below, available on the City of Dublin website: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/ Biological Resources Assessment (August 2017) Rare Plant Survey Report (August 2017) Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Wate Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kari Dupler WRA Associate Wetland Biologist Packet Pg. 347 6.1.k ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 13, 2018 Via Email and Hand Delivery Planning Commissioners Tara Bhuthimethee, Scott Mittan, Amit Kothari, Stephen Wright, Samir Quereshi City of Dublin City Council Chamber 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Email: PlanningCommission@ci.dublin.ca.us Via Email Only Ms. Martha Battaglia, Associate Planner (Martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov) Re: Agenda Item 5.2: Zeiss Innovation Center - Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2017-00025) Dear Planning Commissioners, Ms. Battaglia: These preliminary comments are submitted on behalf of Dublin Residents for Responsible Development (ÑDublin ResidentsÒ) regarding Agenda Item 5.2: Zeiss Innovation Center, Planned Development Rezone with a related Sta 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review Permit (PLPA-2017 (ÑProjectÒ), and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (ÑMNDÒ) prepared for the Project. The Project, proposed by Carl Zeiss, Inc. (ÑApplicantÒ), proposes to develop a two phase Project. Phase 1 would consist of a three-story, 208,650 gross square feet (ÑGSFÒ) Research and Development (ÑR&DÒ) building with an entry plaza and 663 surface parking spaces. Pha of an additional five-story, 224,440 GSF R&D building with 167 s spaces, and a five story, 1,229-space parking garage. Dublin Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential pu 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper Packet Pg. 348 6.1.k February 13, 2018 Page 2 health and safety hazards and environmental impacts of the Project. The association includes City of Dublin residents; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 342, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483 and their members families; and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of Dublin and Alameda County. Dublin Residents have a strong interest in enforcing the StateÔs environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and en working environment for its members. Based upon our review of the MND and Staff Report, we conclude that the MND fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (ÑCEQAÒ). The MND fails to disclose and evaluate the ProjectÔs 1 potentially significant environmental impacts and fails to propose enforceable measures that can reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Moreover, the proposed adoption of an MND in lieu of preparation of an environmental impact report (ÑEIRÒ) violates CEQA because a fair argument exists that the Project will result in potentially significant impacts relating to air qualit resources. The City may not approve the Project until it prepares a supplemental environmental impact report (ÑSEIRÒ) that adequately analyzes th potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts. Dublin Residents submits these comments and expert reports in response to the MND and Staff Report. Dublin Residents reserves the right to supplement these comments at later hearings on this Project. These comments incorporate the 2 expert comments of air quality and hazards experts Matt Hagemann and Hadley Nolan of Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (ÑSWAPEÒ), whose technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as and Attachment A; 3 biological resources expert Scott Cashen, whose technical commen vitae are attached hereto as Attachment B. 4 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. ££ 15000 et seq. (ÑCEQA GuidelinesÒ). 1 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield 2 (ÑBakersfieldÒ) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. Attachment A: Letter from Matt Hagemann and Hadley Nolan to Christina Caro re: Comments on 3 the Zeiss Innovation Project, February 13, 2018 (ÑSWAPE Comments Attachment B: Letter from Scott Cashen to Christina Caro re: Comments on the 4 Project, February 12, 2018 (ÑCashen CommentsÒ). 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper Packet Pg. 349 6.1.k February 13, 2018 Page 3 I.THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT REQUIRE THE CITY TO PREPARE AN SEIR Under CEQA, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The fair argument 5 standard creates a Ñlow thresholdÒ favoring environmental review through an EIR, An agencyÔs decision not to rather than through issuance of a negative declaration. 6 require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary. Substantial evidence can be provided by technical experts or members of 7 the public. ÑIf a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may 8 have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.Ò 9 The enclosed technical comments of SWAPE and Mr. Cashen provide substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant, inadequately mitigated impacts in, , the following respects: inter alia : The MND failed to include a quantified analysis Construction Emissions of the ProjectÔs construction emissions. SWAPE prepared a CalEEMod model that includes site-specific information and updated input parameters for the Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2; CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f), (h);Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal. 5 4th at p. 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1601-1602. Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754. 6 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street, supra, 7 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 1002 (ÑIf there was substantial evidence th significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision t dispense with preparation of an [environmental impact report] and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be Ófairly arguedÔ that the project might have See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible and Open Government v. City of Grand Te e (2008) 160 8 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1340 (substantial evidence regarding noise impacts included public comments at hearings that selected air conditioners are very noisy); see also Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey, 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1117-1118 (substantial evidence regardin historic resource included fact-based testimony of qualified speakers at the public hearing); Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 199. CEQA Guidelines § 15062(f). 9 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper Packet Pg. 350 6.1.k February 13, 2018 Page 4 Project. SWAPEÔs modeling demonstrates that, when the ProjectÔs construction emissions are compared to applicable Bay Area Air Q Management District (ÑBAAQMDÒ) thresholds, both the ProjectÔs construction-related ROG and NOx emissions exceed the BAAQMDÔs established significance thresholds. SWAPEÔs findings are summar table below: DailyConstructionEmissions(lbs/day) SWAPEModelROGNOPM10PM2.5 x /š“­·©Ò-·zš“  u u BAAQMDThreshold(lbs/day)54548254 w©;­wšŒ79ã-;;7;7j—;­—;­bšbš SWAPEÔs calculations and expert comments constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have significan emissions that the MND fails to disclose and mitigate. Health Risk from Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants During : The MND concludes, without Project Construction and Operation conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment (ÑHRAÒ), that the Project would not have a significant impact to nearby sensitive receptors. SWAPE performed a screening level health ri assessment of the ProjectÔs construction and operational emissions at nearby sensitive receptors. Based on this assessment, SWAPE concludes that the Project will result in a significant cancer risk to local sensitive receptors on the magnitude of 4.9, 32, and 430 in one million for adults, children and infants, respectively. This exceeds BAAQMDÔs significance threshold of 10 in one million, and is a per se significant impact under CEQA. : The MND failed to disclose and Significant Impacts to Listed Species mitigate the ProjectÔs potentially significant impacts to Specia Branchiopods. As Mr. Cashen explains, the Project site lies within the ÑLivermore Vernal Pool Region.Ò Ephemeral pools in the Livermor Pool Region provide habitat for special-status branchiopods, including the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the California linderiella. Although the Project site contains several seasonal wetlands, The MNDÔs Biological Resources Assessment incorrectly concludes that there is Ñno 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper Packet Pg. 351 6.1.k February 13, 2018 Page 5 potentialÒ for these species to occur at the Project site. Mr. Cashen provides expert testimony that these species are likely to occur at the Project site, and are likely to be adversely impacted by the Project. The MND fails to disclose and mitigate these potentially significant impacts. II.CONCLUSION There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant adverse impacts that were not identified in the MND, and thus have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated. We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA by withdrawing the MND and preparing a legally adequate SEIR to address the potentially significant impacts described in this comment letter and the attached letters from SWAPE and Mr. Cashen. This is the only way the City and the public will be able to ensure that the ProjectÔs significant environmental impacts are mitigated to less than sig Thank you for your attention to these comments. Sincerely, Christina M. Caro CMC:acp 4107-005acp printed on recycled paper Packet Pg. 352 6.1.k Packet Pg. 353 6.1.k Packet Pg. 354 6.1.k Packet Pg. 355 6.1.k Packet Pg. 356 6.1.k Packet Pg. 357 6.1.k Packet Pg. 358 6.1.k Packet Pg. 359 6.1.k Packet Pg. 360 6.1.k Packet Pg. 361 6.1.k Packet Pg. 362 6.1.k Packet Pg. 363 6.1.k Packet Pg. 364 6.1.k Packet Pg. 365 6.1.k Packet Pg. 366 6.1.k Packet Pg. 367 6.1.k Packet Pg. 368 6.1.k Packet Pg. 369 6.1.k Packet Pg. 370 6.1.k Packet Pg. 371 6.1.k Packet Pg. 372 6.1.k Packet Pg. 373 6.1.k Packet Pg. 374 6.1.k Packet Pg. 375 6.1.k Packet Pg. 376 6.1.k Packet Pg. 377 6.1.k Packet Pg. 378 6.1.k Packet Pg. 379 6.1.k Packet Pg. 380 6.1.k Packet Pg. 381 6.1.k Packet Pg. 382 6.1.k Packet Pg. 383 6.1.k Packet Pg. 384 6.1.k Packet Pg. 385 6.1.k Packet Pg. 386 6.1.k Packet Pg. 387 6.1.k Packet Pg. 388 6.1.k Packet Pg. 389 6.1.k Packet Pg. 390 6.1.k Packet Pg. 391 6.1.k Packet Pg. 392 6.1.k Packet Pg. 393 6.1.k Packet Pg. 394 6.1.k Packet Pg. 395 6.1.k Packet Pg. 396 6.1.k Packet Pg. 397 6.1.k Packet Pg. 398 6.1.k Packet Pg. 399 6.1.k Packet Pg. 400 6.1.k Packet Pg. 401 6.1.k Packet Pg. 402 6.1.k Packet Pg. 403 6.1.k Packet Pg. 404 6.1.k Packet Pg. 405 6.1.k Packet Pg. 406 6.1.k Packet Pg. 407 6.1.k Packet Pg. 408 6.1.k EXHIBITA Packet Pg. 409 6.1.k 1 Packet Pg. 410 6.1.k SITE VISIT Figure 1.Canada geese fly over the proposed project site, 8 February 2018 Figure 2.Juvenile white-crowned sparrow foraging on the proposed project site, 8 February 2018 2 Packet Pg. 411 6.1.k Table 1.Species of wildlife I observed from 10:50 to 11:05 hours on 8February2018 at the site of the proposed Zeiss Innovation Center, where Site refers to the proposed project site, west side refers to the graded property west of Arnold andimmediately west of the site, east side refers to developer property immediately east of the site, and east edge refers to trees and buffer between project site and developed area east of site SpeciesScientific nameAreaAbundance Lepus californicus Syvalagus auduboni Spermophilus beecheyi Branta canadensis Larus californicus Cathartes aura Buteo jamaicensis Turdus migratorius Bombycilla cedrorum Zenaita macroura Columba livea Corvus brachyrhynchos Pipilo fuscus Zonotrichia leucophrys Agelaius phoenicus Sturnella neglecta Carduelis tristis Carpodacus mexicanus 3 Packet Pg. 412 6.1.k Figure 3. Cedar waxwing, one of 40 that landed in trees at southeast corner of proposed project site, 8 February 2018 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT 4 Packet Pg. 413 6.1.k bioretention cell As determined in the project site survey conducted on April 12, 2017 by WRA, Inc., the project area is not currently inhabited by Western burrowing owls 5 Packet Pg. 414 6.1.k 6 Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 6.1.k Table 3.Species reported on eBird (https://eBird.org) on or near the proposed project site SpeciesScientific nameStatus 1 On site Buteo jamaicensis Athene cunicularia Near the site Numenius americanus Larus californicus Haliaeetus leucocephalus Aquila chrysaetos Buteo regalis Buteo swainsoni Buteo lineatus Accipiter striatus Accipiter cooperi Circus cyaneus Elanus leucurus Falco sparverius Falco columbarius Falco mexicanus Falco peregrinus Baeolophus inornatus Lanius ludovicianus Pica nuttalli Setophaga petechia Agelaius tricolor Carduelis lawrencei Buteo regalis Unlikely. The Project Areais within a developed area, and lacks the open habitat required by this species for foraging and nesting. The lack of foraging habitat or nesting structures as well as a lack of connectivity with other open grasslands makes the Project Area unlikely to support this species 10 Packet Pg. 419 6.1.k Figure 1.A ferruginous hawk grabs into a pocket gopher mound while foraging on a field of similar size, vegetation cover, and residential/commercial surroundings as at the proposed project site Circus cyaneus Unlikely. Marsh and grassland habitat suitable for this species is not present within the Project Area Elanus leucurus Unlikely. The Project Area is located in a predominantly developed area, and typical open grassland habitat used for foraging is not present Eremophila alpestris actia Unlikely. The Project Area lacks suitable grasses and shrubs to provide adequate foraging habitat. Lack of connectivity to other potentially suitable habitats also lessens likelihood of presence within the Project Area 11 Packet Pg. 420 6.1.k Agelaius tricolor No Potential. The Project Area does not have any suitable habitat such as: marsh or thickets of willow, to support nesting or foraging of this species Figure 2.Tricolored blackbirds foraging on grasslands a few miles west of the proposed project site in May 2016 Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Potential. There are no rivers, streams, lakes or other waterbodies to provide foraging habitat for this species within the Project Are Amphiza belliNo Potential. The Project Area consists of mainly nonnative grasses. No breeding or foraging habitat exists within the Project Area to support this species. 12 Packet Pg. 421 6.1.k Falco peregrinus No Potential. The Project Area and immediate vicinity do not consist of any wetland, lake, river or other water body necessary to support this species Pica nuttalli No Potential. The Project Area is located in a predominantly developed area, and typical open grassland habitat used for foraging is not present. The lack of trees this species uses for cover is also absent Actinemys (Emys) marmorata No Potential. The Project Area lacks suitable perennial water habitat to support the species WILDLIFE MOVEMENT Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas typically occurs via wildlife movement corridors There are no stream courses on or near the project site that could be used as a wildlife migration corridor Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors 13 Packet Pg. 422 6.1.k WINDOW COLLISIONS 14 Packet Pg. 423 6.1.k 15 Packet Pg. 424 6.1.k 16 Packet Pg. 425 6.1.k Window Collision Factors 17 Packet Pg. 426 6.1.k 18 Packet Pg. 427 6.1.k 19 Packet Pg. 428 6.1.k 20 Packet Pg. 429 6.1.k Window Collision Solutions (1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts (2) Siting and Designing to minimize impacts 21 Packet Pg. 430 6.1.k Guidelineson Building Design CUMULATIVE IMPACTS the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in Biological Resources, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment as a result of 22 Packet Pg. 431 6.1.k build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR andCisco Systems IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. MITIGATION MEASURES MM Bio-1 Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation 23 Packet Pg. 432 6.1.k Table 4.Summary of standards in CDFW (2012) mitigation guidelines Is Standard from CDFW (2012)Proposed mitigationstandard met? Seasonal/Spatial Avoidance Take avoidance surveys(Preconstruction surveys) Site surveillance Minimizing Buffers Other minimization measures (such as livestock or vegetation management) 24 Packet Pg. 433 6.1.k Is Standard from CDFW (2012)Proposed mitigationstandard met? Burrow exclusion (evictions is potentially significant impact under CEQA) Compensatory mitigation 25 Packet Pg. 434 6.1.k Is Standard from CDFW (2012)Proposed mitigationstandard met? MM BIO-3 Protect Birds Covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife MITIGATING WINDOW COLLISIONS 26 Packet Pg. 435 6.1.k Impacts monitoringin BACI Experiment Fund wildlife rehabilitation facilities to rectify collision impacts 27 Packet Pg. 436 6.1.k 28 Packet Pg. 437 6.1.k REFERENCES CITED 29 Packet Pg. 438 6.1.k 30 Packet Pg. 439 6.1.k 31 Packet Pg. 440 6.1.k 32 Packet Pg. 441 6.1.k 1 Packet Pg. 442 6.1.k Packet Pg. 443 6.1.k Packet Pg. 444 6.1.k Packet Pg. 445 6.1.k Packet Pg. 446 6.1.k Packet Pg. 447 6.1.k Packet Pg. 448 6.1.k EXHIBITB Packet Pg. 449 6.1.k (!¯¯«¨¢ ­³) Packet Pg. 450 6.1.k Packet Pg. 451 6.1.k Packet Pg. 452 6.1.k Packet Pg. 453 6.1.k Packet Pg. 454 6.1.k Packet Pg. 455 6.1.k Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) Attachment: 11. Response to Comments (Zeiss Innovation Center Stg 1&2 SDR (PLPA-2017-00025)) 6.1.k Packet Pg. 492 6.1.k Packet Pg. 493 6.1.k Packet Pg. 494 6.1.k Packet Pg. 495 6.1.k Packet Pg. 496 6.1.k Packet Pg. 497 6.1.k Packet Pg. 498 6.1.k Packet Pg. 499 6.1.k Packet Pg. 500 6.1.k Packet Pg. 501 6.1.k Packet Pg. 502 6.1.k Packet Pg. 503 6.1.k Packet Pg. 504 6.1.k Packet Pg. 505 6.1.k Packet Pg. 506 6.1.k Packet Pg. 507 6.1.k Packet Pg. 508 6.1.k Packet Pg. 509 6.1.k EXHIBITC Packet Pg. 510 6.1.k Packet Pg. 511 6.1.k Packet Pg. 512 6.1.k Packet Pg. 513 6.1.k Highway Capacity Manual. Packet Pg. 514 6.1.k 1984 Highway Capacity Manual, Manual, Packet Pg. 515 6.1.k Packet Pg. 516 6.1.k Packet Pg. 517 6.1.k Packet Pg. 518 6.1.k Packet Pg. 519 6.1.k Packet Pg. 520 6.1.k Packet Pg. 521 6.1.k EXHIBITD Packet Pg. 522 6.1.k Heidi M. Bauer, PG 625 2nd Street, Suite 210 Petaluma, CA 94952 February 12, 2018 Rebecca L. Davis, Associate Attorney Lozeau | Drury LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Subject: Review of Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections of the May 2017 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND/IS) plus Technical Appendices- Ferrante Apartments Project (NV-2015-0490-MND) Dear Ms. Davis, Please find the following review of the documents prepared for t northeast corner of Dublin Blvd and Arnold Drive. This review pe Materials concerns of the Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND and the Cisco Initial Study. The documents reviewed are the 2018 Zeiss Innovation Center Supplemental Initi Declaration, the 2001 Cisco Initial Study, and the Lowney Associ Assessment Subsurface investigations. Site Background The site is 11.36 net acres of land (APN: 9860014-010-00) located on the corner of Dublin Blvd and Arnold Road. The site is currently vacant. The site functioned as a US Naval from the early 1940s up until about 1949. Of interest to the subject site is two former fuel stations located on the property; one in the northwest portion of the pro property. Parcel 15A also contained an inflammable storage building, public works office and shop, transportation shop and barracks, and another unidentified build (Lowney 2000). A former laundry and boiler room was located on the adjacent parcel to the east (The Zeiss Innovation Center is being proposed on the former Parcel 15A site. 625 2 Street, Suite 210, Petaluma, CA 94952 | 707-769-2289 | www.awsciences.com nd Packet Pg. 523 6.1.k Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Previous soil, soil vapor and groundwater investigations Several soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigations were co response to directives from the Regional Water Quality Control Bpreparation for the pending CISCO project which ultimatelydid not go forward. The main areas of concern for the project (Parcel 15A) is the area of the former fuel stations piping and associated leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), the upgradient/sidegradient (Parcel 15B) which shows elevated PCE levels likely from the former laundry, the possible contaminated fill from incinerator ash used throughout the property and the presence of an unknown tar-like substance on Parcel 15. The site investigations are summarized below: In June 1998 a soil and ground water investigation was conducted on Parcel 16 only which is located directly to the south of the subject site (Parcel 15A). AccordiPhase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Subsurface investigations (Lowney, 2000) groundwater was encountered at approximately 5 feet in the southeast corner of the lot. Laboratory analysis detected 120,000 ppb of TEPH [Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons] i-site sample from the southeast corner of Parcel 16B and up to 100 ppb of PCE and 4.2 CE in two borings along the northern boundary of Parcel 16A. As stated in the report the pre Parcel 15B. This was likely from the former laundry located on t In June 1999 a Residual Volatile Organic Compounds Investigation was conducted on Parcel 15 and 15A. A 16-point, passive soil gas survey was performed to characterize the organic compounds (VOCs) on the site. According to the Lowney ESA (Lowney, 2000) up to 0.29 ppm of PCE (at six locations) and 1.53 ppm of chloroform (at three locations) w samples. One deep boring (approximately 96.5 feet) was drilled o-site of Parcel 15 near Dublin Boulevard. Ground water was encountered at 18 feet in the boring Laboratory analysis of the ground water from the deep boring detected 3.5 ppb of PCE. Three shallo- to 30-foot) borings also were drilled on Parcel 15. The borings were convert sampled for VOCs. Laboratory analyses of the ground water samples detected 50 ppb to 18 PCE in two borings located near the south side of the off-site former laundry and boiler room on Parcel 15B. In March 2000 a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessme(ESA) Subsurface Investigation (Lowney 2000) was conducted for Parcel 15. The Lowney ESA report concluded that shallow ground water beneath the southern portion of Parcel 15 was impacted by ppb. The highest concentration in the ground water samples was located near the former laundry/boiler room on Parcel 15. One soil boring on the souther Packet Pg. 524 6.1.k Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 3 of 8 the laundry/boiler room building, contained 5,600 ppm of TEPH. Also noted in the report was elevated chemicals of concern from the fill material which warra management plan to prevent worker exposure. Also noted was a tar-like substance in the former northern service station area which was estimated to be approximch thick (Lowney 2000). In May 2000 two underground storage tanks (one 10,000-gallon and one 1,000-gallon) were removed from the eastern (off-site) portion of Parcel 15 as reported in the Lowney report (Lowney 2000). Based on the site maps in the Lowney 2000 ESA it appears that the USTs were located on the west side of the property, not the east side. In November 2000 sampling was documented in the Lowney ESA report titled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation. The report details the following sampling and assessment data: Soil Vapor Sampling: ten soil vapor probes were pushed to a depth of approximately 5 f each service station on Parcel 15A. Passive soil vapor samples w organic volatile compounds in three areas. Soil Sampling: fifteen near-surface (surface to 1/2-foot depth) soil samples were collected from locations selected at former structures and open field areas on Seven were located on Parcel 15A. Test Pit Sampling: eighty-one samples from selected test pits on each of the three parcelswere sampled and analyzed for arsenic, lead, purgeable and extractable fuel hydrocarbons and asbestos. Twenty-four samples were analyzed for CAM 17 metals. Additional testing including PCBs and dioxins. The average sample depth was 3.1 feet and the median depth was 2 Groundwater Sampling: groundwater was reported at depths ranging from 15 to 18 feet bgs. According to the Lowney ESA (Lowney 2000) groundwater impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons was encountered at the two former service stations ppb of TPHg and 3,300 ppb of TPHd were detected in the area of t service station on Parcel 15A. Up to 290 ppb of TPHd was detected in the area of the former Building 468A service station on Parcel 15A. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) was detected up to 39 ppb on Parcel 15A and PCE was detected up to 24 ppb on Parcel 15A, 440 ppb on Parcel 15B to the east and 120 ppb off-site just to the south of Parcel 15. Packet Pg. 525 6.1.k Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 4 of 8 The Carl Zeiss Innovation Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Zeiss IS/MND, 2018) has not undergone a complete and thorough review because its findings are based on inadequate, incomplete and antiquated data used in the 2001 Cisco Initial Study (Cisco, 200. The Supplemental IS/MND (Zeiss IS/MND, 2018)for the Zeiss project states Because the Cisco Systems IS/MND was prepared in 2001, updates to biological resources, cu transportation/traffic are included in this IS/Supplemental MND concluded that biological resources are the only environmental issue where a potential n impact could occur. Based on this City staff has chosen to rely project(Cisco) in 2001; 17 years ago. While the proposed use may be similar subsurface, geochemical data can change considerably over the course of 18 to 20 years and this could be a substantial change from what was known in 1998-2000. The only mitigation measure proposed to deal with the existing environmental concerns is Mitigation Measure 3 whichrequires all asbestos wrapped piping be removed and heavy petroleum hydrocarbons be removed to the extent required by the appropriate regulatory agencies (Zeiss, 2018 IS/MND). Furthermore, the original IS/MND for the Cisco project relied on an incomplete data set and had that project moved forw surfaced. A review of this data is bringing to light, possibly for the fir data is missing from the investigation. The original IS/MND for the Cisco (Cisco, 2001) project used data presented in the March 2000 Phase I and Phase II Environmental S investigations (Lowney, 2000) which is missing important subsurface data and analysis. It is possible this report and data was not thoroughly analyzed at the time bec The Lowney ESA and therefore the Cisco Initial Study are inadequate and/or incomplete for the following reasons: 1) The soil samples were collected from depths too shallow to be useful. The two leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) removed from the property were capacity. A typical 10,000 gallon UST has a diameter of 8 feet a diameter of 5 feet. These tanks are buried at least two feet below gr 10,000 gallon LUST at a minimum of 10 feet below ground surface bgs) and the 1,000 gallon LUST at a minimum of 7 feet bgs. The soil samples were collected from depths no greater than 6-inches and the test pit samples were collected from depths averaging 3.1 feet bgs or a median depth of 2.5 feet bgs. Since contents in the LUSTs and their piping are subject to gravitational forces in the subsurface these samples should have been collected from locations below the bottom and laterally outward of the excavations; not above. Only seven soil borings were advanced at the site and this quant insufficient to determine impacts from any piping or UST leaks. above 7 ft bgs for the 1,000 gallon LUST and 10 feet bgs for the about what may be in the soil column from the LUST release area to the saturated zone. Packet Pg. 526 6.1.k Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 5 of 8 2) The results of the groundwater samples are not discussed in the Lowney report (Lowney 2000). The Lowney report documents that groundwater samples were collec are not discussed in the Conclusion section of the report. The d Figure 10 of the Lowney ESA indicated TPHg (Total Petroleum Hydr ppb and TPHd (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as diesel) up to 3,30 ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) was found up to 39 ppb; it is nolear from the report if this is a cumulative result of BTEX chemicals or the if this is the highes results. Concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) were detect 15 up to 120 ppb. The Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) published by the San Francis Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB-RWQCB) have an ESL for TPHg and TPHd of 100 ug/l (ppb) whereas the concentrations on-site were found at 15,000 ppb for TPHg and 3,300 for TPHd. The on-site PCE concentrations were found up to 120 ppb and the ESL of PCE i ppb, toluene is 40 ppb, ethylbenzene is 13 ppb and xylenes is 20-site was 39 ppb which if the BTEX result was for any of the analytes would be an exceedance. The current level of groundwater depth or groundwater contaminan are unknown and therefore the risks from them are also not known 3) The data relied on in the Zeiss IS/MND (Zeiss IS/ MND, 2017) in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section is no longer appropriate for use. The latest data collec-20 years old. The site subsurface in the area of the water table is dynam concentrations in the vadose and saturated zones change with the groundwater table direction of groundwater flow. The groundwater flow direction is documented in the Lowney report (Lowney, 2000). Contaminant concentrations that were detected above the ESL from the north portion of the site likely migrated found in other portions of the site not previously investigated. collected from the upgradient portion of the site or upgradient areas on the adjacent and therefore if elevated contaminant concentrations did exist i onto the subject site within the past 20 years and without curre risks to the public and workers cannot be ascertained. 4) Relying on environmental assessment data from the year 2000 (Lowney 2000) leaves out the potential for impacts from surrounding use since that time. The Assessments performed by Lowney and others from 1998 to 2000 looked at the pot surrounding uses and contaminated sites at that time. A signific now located on the subject property could have occurred within t. As stated in the Lowney 2000 ESA: Several facilities in the vicinity, however, were reported as ha leaks or spills occur at these facilities, contamination could i Packet Pg. 527 6.1.k Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 6 of 8 effectives of cleanup efforts. According to the RWQCB Geotracker (Geotracker, 2018) database regarding a site that is located upgradient of the subject site pump seal and diesel underground tank's day tank, which caused tay tank to release onto the concrete pad and spread downhill approximately impacted absorbent and soil was generated; however, no documenta the release has been sufficiently abated. This instance, update environmental occurrences that could have happened in the area o Without an investigation into the current status of environmenta environmental risk cannot be thoroughly reviewed. The Carl Zeiss IS/MND does not adequately protect workers or the publicfrom potential impacts from contaminated soil and soil vapor. Based on the fact that soil samples were not collected from apprabove contaminant concentrations in the subsurface soils beneath 2-3 feet bgs and 5 feet for soil vapors are not known. Since it is possible that exposures to soil beneath t construction work additional investigation as to the risks to workers and the public should be determined. In addition, the Lowney ESA (Lowney, 2000) recommended a soil management plan for handling significantly impacted soil if encountered during gradiand this is not included nor mentioned in any of the Carl Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND mitigation measures. The level of environmental risk from this site should be assesse (EIR) not in an MND/IS. The environmental history of this site, including the unknown im uninvestigated site soils, combined with the existing elevated concentrations of contaminabove the ESLs in the groundwater can potentially create a significant environmental health threat toworker safety, the public and future employees at the project site. Furthermore, data for which for the project MND/IS declaration was based, is not current and is incomplete in its evaluation of subsurface The determination for an MND should be that no (mitigated) environmental risk exists, however as shown above, the record shows 1) a clear lack of soil data, 2) a potential source for contaminated groundwater, 3) known contaminants from fill without any plan for soil manageand 4) the unknown impacts from environmental conditions which may have occurred in the pas-20 years. For these reasons the impacts to the environment and the public and therefore an MND/IS is not appropriate for this project. A full EIR is recommended to adequately and thoroughly review the risks from this project. Packet Pg. 528 6.1.k Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 7 of 8 CONCLUSION The MND/IS fails to adequately evaluate the risks from this proj futureoccupants. There is substantial evidence in the record that environmental the subsurface that can have a significant impact on the environ presented in the project file indicates that existing potential from subsurface impacts were not properly investigated and the risks from these remain unknown. Tone mitigation proposed in the MND/IS to remove the known soil contamination but because there is a sul area that has not be adequately assessed the mitigations do not reduce the risks to below significant. A Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for a project when there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects ce impacts or that mitigations proposed can reduce those impacts to below s exists, as outlined above, showing that this project could resul and the mitigations proposed are inadequate in addressing these appropriate for this project and a full EIR is warranted. In addition, because the site geochemical data, fluctuating with the site hydrogeology and contaminant flow, countly from the initial Cisco IS/MND a new study with current data for this public and the decision-makers a complete and thorough review of this project. Sincerely, Heidi Bauer, PG 7050 Senior Project Hydrogeologist References City of Dublin, December 8, 2017, Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study for Zeiss Innovation Center, Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00025 City of Dublin, June 2001, Initial Study, Cisco Systems, PA 00-029 Packet Pg. 529 6.1.k Bauer, Zeiss IS/MND Review February 13, 2018 Page 8 of 8 RWQCB Geotracker website, 2018, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_ Lowney Associates, November 2000, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation, Cisco Systems Site 9 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Levels (ESLs), http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/progr _Interim%20Final_22Feb16_Rev3_PDF.pdf Packet Pg. 530 6.1.k 625 2nd Street, Suite 110 HEIDI M. BAUER, PG Petaluma, CA 94952 707-769-2289 heidi@awsciences.com www.awsciences.com PROFILE EXPERIENCE Air & Water Sciences, Petaluma, California Miller Brooks Environmental, Oakland, California Clearwater Group, Inc., Oakland, California Walden Associates Inc., Oyster Bay, New York Department of Environmental Health & Safety, State of New York, Stony Brook, New York Packet Pg. 531 6.1.k ADDITIONAL PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT US Coast Guard Reserve, Pacific Strike Team, Novato, California and Fort Wadsworth, NY Marine Science Research Center, Stony Brook, New York Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Syracuse, New York Department of Environmental Health & Safety, State of New York, Stony Brook, New York New York Public Interest Research Group ACADEMIC BACKGROUND Bachelor of Science Master of Professional Studies REGISTRATIONS, CERTIFICATES, & PUBLICATIONS Page 2 Packet Pg. 532 6.1.k EXHIBITE Packet Pg. 533 6.1.k Thresholds of Significance Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-1 CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Packet Pg. 534 6.1.k Operational Criteria Operational GHG Construction-Related Land Use Type Pollutant Screening SizeScreening Size Screening Size Page | 3-2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Packet Pg. 535 6.1.k Operational Criteria Operational GHG Construction-Related Land Use Type Pollutant Screening SizeScreening Size Screening Size Thresholds of Significance Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-3 CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Packet Pg. 536 6.1.k Chapter 7 Assessing and Mitigating Odor Impacts Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance Page | 3-4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Packet Pg. 537 6.1.k Thresholds of Significance Screening Criteria Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Assessing and Mitigating Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts Bay Area Air Quality Management District Page | 3-5 CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Packet Pg. 538 6.1.k Page | 3-6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines June 2010 Packet Pg. 539 7.1 Packet Pg. 540 7.1 Packet Pg. 541 7.1 Packet Pg. 542 7.1 Packet Pg. 543 7.1 Packet Pg. 544 7.1 Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin 2/9/2018 12:29:56 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 81/90/20 2 BUSER TNE 71/82/80 BUSER TNE 71/42/50 STNEMELTITNE IRON HORSE PKWY HAMLET LN. DE MARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN. SCARLETT DR. PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:29:57 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:01 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) * 17 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 38 44 44 44 PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:36:00 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) * PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:38:59 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 8% 8% CCCCCC AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 8% 8% CCCCCC AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 8% 8% CCCCCC AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) SLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPESLOPE SLOPE AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 8% 8% CCCCCC AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) AM C:\Autodesk\16036UDRDublin-CENTRAL_alink.rvt3/16/201710:18:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DEMARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DEMARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DEMARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DEMARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DEMARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DEMARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DE MARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:11 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) HAMLET LN. DE MARCUS BLVD DE MARCUS BLVD CAMPBELL LN PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:16 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DE MARCUS BLVD 258' - 3" 2' - 4 1/2"5' - 3 1/2" 26' - 0"14' - 3" 18' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 0"100' - 0" 24' - 2 1/2"16' - 2" 14' - 3" 222' - 10 1/2" CAMPBELL LANE PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:34 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 1:57:51 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:43 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:47 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:52 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:30:56 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:31:03 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) ROOM YOGA 21' - 0" 7' - 8" 18' - 0"24' - 2"17' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"17' - 3"18' - 9"24' - 0"17' - 0"2' - 6" LLLL CCCC L C PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:31:23 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 9' - 0" 9' - 0"5' - 0" 18' - 0"24' - 2"17' - 0"22' - 0"18' - 0"24' - 0"17' - 3"18' - 9"24' - 0"17' - 0" 2' - 4 1/2" LLLLLL CCCCCC 9' - 0" 23' - 0 1/2"232' - 9 1/2"2' - 4 1/2" PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 2:00:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 137' - 2 1/2" 13' - 3 1/2"75' - 8"13' - 0 1/2" 158' - 8 1/2"39' - 11 1/2"13' - 9" PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 2:03:10 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 27' - 0"204' - 0 1/2"27' - 2 1/2" 50' - 11 1/2" 137' - 2 1/2" 13' - 3 1/2"75' - 8"13' - 0 1/2" 34' - 2" 221' - 9"2' - 4"34' - 2" PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 2:07:39 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 23' - 0"4' - 0 1/2"204' - 0 1/2"27' - 2 1/2" 50' - 11 1/2" 137' - 2 1/2" 13' - 3 1/2"75' - 8"13' - 0 1/2" 34' - 2" 221' - 9"34' - 2"2' - 4" PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 2:21:03 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 27' - 0"196' - 9"34' - 6" 144' - 11"8' - 2"43' - 7 1/2"7' - 2 1/2" 112' - 4" PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 2:26:16 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) 31' - 6 1/2"192' - 2 1/2"34' - 6" 2' - 0"8' - 6 1/2" 1' - 10 1/2" 25' - 1" PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 2:27:07 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:33:34 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM c architects BAR C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin8/28/2017 4:29:15 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM c architects BAR C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin8/28/2017 4:29:24 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) CAMPBELL LNCAMPBELL LN PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE SHARED PRIVATE DRIVESHARED PRIVATE DRIVE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PM c architects BAR C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin8/28/2017 4:29:31 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) DE MARCUS BVLD DE MARCUS BVLD PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE CAMPBELL LN CAMPBELL LN PM c architects BAR C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin8/28/2017 4:29:36 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) KITCHEN KITCHEN CLOSET KITCHEN KITCHEN PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:34:30 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:34:35 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:34:41 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:34:45 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:34:55 Attachment: 1. Project Plans (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A-3)) PM architects BARc C O P Y R I G H T CA/UDR DUBLIN-A.rvtBIM 360://004-17009 Dublin2/9/2018 12:39:08 7.1.b Background Packet Pg. 594 7.1.b Project Site Packet Pg. 595 7.1.b Current Request Planned Development Zoning Site Development Review Permit Subdivision Packet Pg. 596 7.1.b Site Plan Packet Pg. 597 7.1.b Architecture Packet Pg. 598 7.1.b Packet Pg. 599 7.1.b Landscaping Packet Pg. 600 7.1.b Floor Plans Parking Packet Pg. 601 7.1.b Affordable Housing/Inclusionary Zoning Public Art Compliance Packet Pg. 602 7.1.b Packet Pg. 603 7.1.b Packet Pg. 604 7.1.c Packet Pg. 605 7.1.c Packet Pg. 606 7.1.c Packet Pg. 607 7.1.c Packet Pg. 608 7.1.d Packet Pg. 609 7.1.d Packet Pg. 610 7.1.d Packet Pg. 611 7.1.d Packet Pg. 612 7.1.d Packet Pg. 613 7.1.d Packet Pg. 614 7.1.e Packet Pg. 615 7.1.e Packet Pg. 616 7.1.e Packet Pg. 617 7.1.e Packet Pg. 618 7.1.e Packet Pg. 619 7.1.e Packet Pg. 620 7.1.f 1 Packet Pg. 621 7.1.f 2 Packet Pg. 622 7.1.f 3 Packet Pg. 623 7.1.f 4 Packet Pg. 624 7.1.f 5 Packet Pg. 625 7.1.f 6 Packet Pg. 626 7.1.f 7 Packet Pg. 627 7.1.g Packet Pg. 628 7.1.g Packet Pg. 629 7.1.g Packet Pg. 630 7.1.g Packet Pg. 631 7.1.g Packet Pg. 632 7.1.g Packet Pg. 633 7.1.g Packet Pg. 634 7.1.g Packet Pg. 635 7.1.g Packet Pg. 636 7.1.g Packet Pg. 637 7.1.g Packet Pg. 638 7.1.g Packet Pg. 639 7.1.g Packet Pg. 640 7.1.g Packet Pg. 641 7.1.g Packet Pg. 642 7.1.g Packet Pg. 643 7.1.g a. b. c. d. e. f. g. a. b. c. d. Packet Pg. 644 7.1.g Packet Pg. 645 7.1.g Packet Pg. 646 7.1.g Packet Pg. 647 7.1.g Packet Pg. 648 7.1.g Packet Pg. 649 7.1.g Packet Pg. 650 7.1.g o o o o o Packet Pg. 651 7.1.g Packet Pg. 652 7.1.g Packet Pg. 653 7.1.g Packet Pg. 654 7.1.g Packet Pg. 655 7.1.g Packet Pg. 656 7.1.g Packet Pg. 657 7.1.h Packet Pg. 658 7.1.h Packet Pg. 659 7.1.h Packet Pg. 660 7.1.h Packet Pg. 661 7.1.i 425 MARKET STREET MORRISON FOERSTER LLP SAN FRANCISCO ,,, BEIJINGBERLINBRUSSELS ,,, DENVERHONG KONGLONDON CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 ,, LOS ANGELESNEW YORK ,, NORTHERN VIRGINIAPALO ALTO TELEPHONE:415.268.7000 ,,, SAN DIEGOSAN FRANCISCOSHANGHAI ,,,.. SINGAPORETOKYOWASHINGTONDC FACSIMILE:415.268.7522 WWW.MOFO.COM Writer’s Direct Contact February20, 2018 +1 (415) 268.7336 MJennings@mofo.com ByEmail:council@dublin.ca.gov Mayor David Haubert Dublin CityHall 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re:Ashton at Dublin Station Project Honorable Mayor and Members of the Dublin City Council: This firm represents Ashton at Dublin Station, LLC (“Applicant”) regarding the land use entitlements for the proposed Ashton at Dublin Station project (“Project”), a 220-unit transit- oriented residential development including 22 permanentlyaffordable housing units. The Project’s compliance with applicable land use plans has been thoroughly described in staff reports, at threeCouncilmeetings(December 5, 2017, January9, 2018 and February6, 2018) and in one-on-one discussions with four out of five Council members. The Applicant appreciates the Council’s feedback regarding the Project, and has modified Project plans based on that feedback, most notablyreducing the number of 3-bedroom units. In light of questions raised byCouncil members regarding the Project’s vested rights, the legal limitations on the Council’s discretion regarding the Project, and the potential outcomes if the Council voted to denythe proposed entitlements, the purpose of this letter is to ensure that all questions have been fullyaddressed, and to describe the legal, policy, and fiscal reasons that the Council should approve the Project at its February20, 2018 meeting.We recognize you will primarily look to your City Attorney and staff for advice. However, because of the seriousness of this matter, we know it is incumbent on us to directlyidentify our issues before you make your determination. I.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Applicant purchased the Project site, and invested significant resources in developing thisProject,in large part because the Cityentered a development agreement (“DA”) for the Dublin Transit Center granting vested rights for exactlythetype of high-densityresidential development the Applicant is proposing. If the Citywere to deny the Project in breach of the sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 662 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageTwo DA—and in conflict withits own General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning ordinance—it would lead to certain litigation and materialfinancial exposure for the City. TheApplicant prefers collaboration to confrontation and continues to hope that the Project will be allowed to move forward in accordance with its vested rights.But if forced to resort to litigation, the Applicant would be able to seekvariouslegal and equitable remedies. The Applicant mayenforce the DA in a civil contract action, and/or seeka writ of mandate to set aside the City’s denials under the Housing AccountabilityAct(“HAA”). The Citywould alsorun a high risk of suit under the HAA by a third-party housing organization. Because the Project complies with the DA and objective land use standards in effect, and because the Legislature has directed the courts not to give deference to cities when theydeny housing developments, the likelyresults would include a court order to approve high-density housing on the Project site—the same outcome before you today—but at the added cost of attorneys’ fees, defense costs, and monetarydamages. These costs to the Citycould be substantial: for example, a 2010 Court of Appeal decision relating to breach of a DA resulted in an award of $43 million against the Town of Mammoth Lakes, which was also required to paythe developer $2.4 million in attorneys’ fees plus its own legal defense costs.In neighboring Pleasanton, you mayalready appreciate that long-running litigation over the city’s failure to allow for high-density housing in its Housing Element resulted in an attorneys’ fee award of $1.9 million. Additionally, in light of veryrecent and ongoing efforts by the California Legislature to both address a statewide housing crisis and promote transit-oriented development, a decision to denythis Project also may result in an alternative higher density developmenton the site in the long run.If thisproposed Project is not approved, the Applicant or a future developer could applyfor a project with greaterdensityunder the Density Bonus Law, recently enacted SB 35, or evenpending legislationsuch as SB 827. If an applicant proceeded under any of these laws, the City could end up with no discretion over development of the site, regardless of design, and quite possibly more new units than the current Project. Theprudent course of action is for the Cityto honor its contracts, uphold its own land use plans, and follow the law byvoting to approve the remaining entitlements for thisProject. II.THE PROJECT HAS A VESTED, CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO DEVELOP AT ITS CURRENT DENSITY AND HEIGHT. A.Development Agreements Are Enforceable Contracts. In response to a controversial Supreme Court decision addressing common law vested rights (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. S. Coast Regional Comm’n, 17 Cal. 3d 785 (1976)), sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 663 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageThree the Legislature in 1979 adopted statutoryprocedures for creating and enforcing DAs. The DA statute was based in part on a finding that: [t]he lack of certaintyin the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. Gov’t Code § 65864(a).The Legislature further declared thatbyproviding assurance that a project mayproceed in accordance with existing land use policies, DAs “strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development.” Id.at(b). Accordingly,DAs are “enforceable contracts” between municipalities and developers. Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, 191 Cal. App. 4th 435, 442 (2010) (“Mammoth Lakes”);see also Dublin Muni. Code § 8.56.110(H) (“[a] development agreement is a contract that is negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Developer …”). The defining feature of a DA is that the rules, regulations, and official policies regarding permitted uses, density, design, and construction of a development are those in effect when the parties executed the agreement, unless otherwise provided in the agreement.SeeGov’tCode § 65866; City of W. Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1193, fn. 6 (1991). Additionally, DAs allow municipalities to require developers to construct public facilities, and/or provide other specified communitybenefits as “consideration” for the development rights conferred.SeeGov’t Code § 65865.2.As such, DAs may“give both parties vested contractual rights,” notwithstanding any change in applicable land use policies.Mammoth Lakes, 191 Cal. App. 4th at 444; Gov’t Code §65865.4. B.The Transit Center Development Agreement Is Binding and Enforceable. Byvoluntarily entering the DA, the City agreed to provide a “vested right to develop the Dublin Transit Center Project” in accordance with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map 7892, and the Stage 1 PD Zoning for the Dublin Transit Center.DA §5.1; 7.1; Recital C. These vested rights expresslyprotect against the risk that the City’s voters or elected officials could later decide to adopt a building moratorium or restrict the rate of development at the Transit Center: such a restriction “shall not apply” to 1 the Transit Centeror any project pursuant to the vested approvals. DA § 8. 1 The only exception that would allowsuch a moratorium or restriction to apply to the Transit Center, which is not relevant here,is a declaration of a local emergency or state emergency pursuant to applicable law. sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 664 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageFour While the language of the DA speaks for itself, the City’s course of conduct over the past 15 years has also consistentlydemonstrated that it views the DA as valid, binding and enforceable.Since 2003, the Cityhas approved everydevelopment project proposed within the Transit Center as consistent with the vested entitlements, and every year—including in September 2017—the City Council has accepted the annual review report submitted for the Transit Center finding that the DA remains in full force and effect. During that period, the Cityhasalso accepted all of the benefits of the contract, including extensive public open spaceimprovements, public art, and affordable housing provided throughout the Transit Center, and $100,000 per yearin cash payments to extend the DA’s term over the last ten years, including a payment in March 2017. C.The Project Complies with the Development Agreement. As described in reports prepared by CityPlanning staff, theProjectconforms to the DA and all vested entitlements.The Applicant previously detailed the Project’s conformance to all objective DA standards, including residential density, in a letter dated January9, 2018 (included as Attachment A). Of note, with construction of the Project’s220 units, the total 384 units across SiteA would be , well below the vested density of 430 units.While the City hasthe right to ensure that Project plans meet the spirit and intent of the DA, it cannot lawfullyexercise its discretion in a waythat frustrates the purpose of that contract. TheMammoth Lakescase is instructive. There, the Town entered a DA granting the developer vestedrights to build and operate residential condominiums and a hotel. 191 Cal. App. 4th at 453. After the Town “changed its priorities” regarding the preferred uses for the site (id.at 440), the Town then failed to issue discretionaryproject-level approvals, claiming that Federal Aviation Administration restrictions prohibited the project. Id.at 458-59. However, the court held that the Town violated the DA bywithholding approvals—even in the absence of a formal action from the Town to denythe project—and upheld a juryaward 2 of $30 million in damages (increased to $43 million with inflation).Id.at 476. InSanta Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo Cty., the Second District Court of Appeal upheld the validityof a DA for a development including 550 residential units, against challenges that the agreement was an unconstitutional surrender of the county’s right to exercise itsdiscretionarypolice powers. 84 Cal. App. 4th 221, 230 (2000).The decisionsuggests that courtswill liberallyconstrue the DA statute to enforce DAs as a 3 “legitimate exercise of governmental police power in the public interest.”Id.at 233, 229. 2 Seehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/mammoth-lakes-calif-faces-bankruptcy.html.As a result of this award, the Town filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. TheTown subsequently settled with the developer and the bankruptcy action was dismissed.Seehttp://www.ci.mammoth-lakes.ca.us/documentcenter/view/3467. 3 See also Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Albany, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1199,1215(finding a DA that containsthe required content should“be construed consistently with that statute”and upheld). sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 665 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageFive Because of the binding assurances theCityprovided in the DA,and the City’s course of conduct demonstrating the DA’s ongoing validity,the Applicant has relied on the contract andmade substantial investments in acquiring the site and developing the Project.In addition, the Applicant continues to incur ongoing costs of holding the property. Like any business, the Applicant must take steps to protect its investment, and if the Citybreaches the DA, Developer will have no choice but to enforce it in court.As an action to enforce a contract, this would likely take the form of civil litigationrather than a writ of mandate action, which is more typical in land use cases.See Mammoth Lakes, 191 Cal. App. 4th at 457. Accordingly, a plaintiff developer suing for injury resulting from a contract breach may use the full range of discoverydevices against a city, including depositions of elected officials and city staff. Thesefactorscontribute to a city’s cost of defending a contract breach lawsuit.If the Applicant is forced to obtain a court judgment to enforce the DA, the Citywould be obligated to payattorneys’ fees to the Applicant, in addition to its own defense costs. DA § 23. Although it is not possible at this point to estimate what these feeswould be, it should be noted that the Mammoth Lakescase upheld a decision that the Town must paythe developernearly$2.4 million in attorneys’ fees.Additionally, although staff has represented to the Council in a February20 staff report that the DA “does not allow monetarydamages against the City,” the cited provision of the DA is likelyto be unenforceable on the basis of the City’sillegal breachand/or if it prevents the Applicant from being made whole.See, e.g.,Civil Code § 1668.The Applicant would seek damages as necessaryto ensure it is made whole following any breach by the City, including lost profits, as were awarded to the Mammoth Lakesdeveloper. Separately, we imagine your City Manager and finance team may have thoughts about the indirect costs to the Cityshould it be perceived in the investment and development communityto renege on its contracts. III.DENIAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD VIOLATE THE HAA. A.The HAA Is Intended to Address a Statewide Housing Crisis. Independent of the commitments it made in the DA, the Citylacks discretion to deny 4 the Project under the Housing AccountabilityAct (“HAA”), Gov’t Code § 65589.5.In 4 In addition, while both the DA and HAA claims are independently sufficient to compel approval of the Project,denial of the Project would likelyviolate other provisions of the Planning and Zoning Lawrelating to consistent application of zoning requirements, Housing Element provisions, etc.The Applicant reserves its rights to assert these and other legal claims as appropriate. sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 666 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageSix adoptingrecentamendments to the HAA as part of a broad package of policies designed to promote housing supply and affordability, the Legislature made new findings that California has a housing supply and affordabilitycrisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectivelyand aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening povertyand homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives… The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantlyincrease the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities bymeaningfully and effectively curbing the capabilityof local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergencyshelters. That intent has not been fulfilled… this section should be interpreted and It is the policyof the state that implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing . Gov’t Code § 65589.5(a)(2) (effective January1, 2018, emphasis added). B.Local Governments Have Very Limited Discretion to Deny Zoning- Compliant Housing Projects. To effectuate this legislative purpose, the HAA greatlylimits alocal government’s discretion regarding manyhousing development projects. Under the HAA, a local government agency generallycannot disapprove a housing development project,or require a reduction in density, if the project complies with applicable andobjectiveGeneralPlan, zoning, and design review standards. Gov’t Code § 65589.5(j). The only exceptions are when the agencyfindsboth that (1) the housing project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and(2)there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact. These impacts must be based on objective and identified written public health or safety standards, conditions, or policies as theyexisted on the date the application was deemed complete.Gov’t Code §65589.5(j)(1);see Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (2011). The 2017 amendments to the HAA clarifythat a housing development project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformitywith an applicable [objective standard] if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable personto conclude that the sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 667 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 Page Seven housing development project … is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.”See §65589.5(f)(4) (emphasis added). The “reasonable person” provision narrows the definition of an objective standard, and “r equire[s] courts to give less deference to a local government's 5 .”The author of this legislationdescribed the need for this consistencydetermination provision as follows: The HAA's intent is to provide appropriate certaintyto all stakeholders in the local approval process and prevent NIMBYism (Not In My Back yard) from successfullypressuring local officials to reject or downsize compliant housing projects. Unfortunately, NIMBY forces often mobilize anti-housing sentiment, and local governments then refuse to extend the HAA's protections to projects that could reasonablybe found to be consistent with the local planning rules. This creates far too much latitude for anti-housing and development sentiments to thwart reasonable and 6 much needed housing. Additionally, the amendments increase the burden of proof on local governments when denying a housing development project: a local agency’s findings must be based on a heightened “preponderance of the evidence” standard rather than the more deferential “substantial evidence” standard common in the land use context. Gov’t Code §65589.5(j)(1). Similar to the purpose of the “reasonable person” language, the preponderance of evidence standard is intended “to address the severity of California’s housing crisis bytaking a critical look at cities approval processes for development. State courts are often too deferential to localities in accepting any justification declaring a 7 development infeasible.” The HAA provides that a reviewing court “shall” award attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs or petitioners if the court finds that the local agencyviolated the HAA bydisapproving or reducing the density of a housing development project. Gov’t Code § 65589.5(k)(1).As with a contract action, such fees can easilyreachtens of thousands of dollars, even with relatively quick settlement, and protracted litigation mayresult in six-or seven-figure fee awards against a non-compliant city. In a telling (non-HAA) case, in litigation regarding the city’s failure to allow high-densityzoning under its Housing Element, the Cityof Pleasanton agreed to pay$1.9 million in attorneys’ fees in a settlement with plaintiff housing 8 advocates. 5 AB 1515(Daly), Assembly Floor Analysis, September 15, 2017. 6 Id. 7 SB 167 (Skinner), Senate Floor Analysis, September 15, 2017. 8 “Pleasanton reaches settlement over housing cap lawsuit,” East Bay Times, July 16, 2010, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/07/16/pleasanton-reaches-settlement-over-housing-cap-lawsuit/. sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 668 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageEight The recent HAAamendments also require that a court “shall impose fines on a local agency” upon a determination that the agencyfailed to complywith an order or judgment compelling compliance with the HAA. Gov’t Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i). The fine shall be in a minimumamount of $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete. Further, if a court determines that its order or judgment compelling a local agencyto comply with the HAA has not been carried out within 60 days, the court mayissue orders that judicially approve the housing development project application as proposed by the applicant.Id.at (k)(1)(C). C.The Project Complies with all Objective Planning and Zoning Standards. The Project is exactlythe type of residential development the HAA is designed to foster.As summarized in Attachment A, a reasonable person would conclude that the Project conforms to the “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards” in effect at the time that the Project’s application was determined to be complete.Gov’t Code § 65589.5(j)(1); 65589.5(f)(4)). 1.The Record Demonstrates that a “Reasonable Person” Would FindConformance to Existing Plans. Theevidence in the public record before the City Council (and that would be before a reviewing court) provides ample basis for a reasonable person to conclude that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Stage 1 zoning for the Transit Center. For example: The CEQA analysis prepared in support of the application concludes that “The proposed project would be consistent with environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan,” and that the Project “would not exceed the allocation of residential units envisioned for Site A nor the greater Dublin Transit 9 Center Project.” The staff report prepared for the November 14, 2017 Planning Commission concluded that the Project “is consistent with the land use designation and zoning,” and that it “has been designed to be compatible with adjacent and surrounding development,” based on review of applicable standards. The Planning Commission unanimouslyvoted on November 14, 2017 to recommend approval of the Stage 2 zoning and related entitlements on the basis that the proposal is consistent with all applicable land use policies. 9 Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis, November 8, 2017, at 31-32. sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 669 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageNine The staff report for the February20, 2018 meeting continues to recommend approval of the Stage 2 zoning, Site Development Review, and Tentative Map for the Project, based on detailed draft findings describing the Project’s conformance tostandards. CityPlanning staff have followed the direction provided bythe Council at its December 5, 2017 meeting to return with a resolution supporting denial of the Project. This “Alternative Action” would be based on the premise that the Project’s density exceeds the densityallowed under the Phase 1 zoning. Staff does not recommend adoption of this denial resolution, and goes so far as to acknowledge in the draftresolution that the onlyobjective densitystandard appliesacrossSite A as a whole—which will remain below approved levels even with the Project. The draft resolution also makes vague references to height, size, mass, and “architectural character,” which are not supported byfactual analysis or reference to objective standards. However, even if staff were able to provide some justification for a denial, it would not overcome the fact that a reasonable person would reach an opposite conclusion. Indeed, adopting the denial resolution would require the Council to find that the City’s own professional Planning staff and Planning Commissioners do not represent reasonable people. Even under a deferential “substantial evidence” standard, it is highly questionable whether the courts would defer to the level of cognitive dissonance needed to support denial of the Project on the stated grounds.The HAA provides no such deference. 2.Stage 2 Zoning Cannot Be an Excuse to Avoid the HAA. The “Alternative Action” described in the February 20, 2018 staff report alsosuggests that the HAA maynot apply to the Project because the Cityhas not yet granted “Stage 2” PD zoning approval. This is demonstrablyfalse. The HAA contemplates that local governments maypoint to subsequent discretionaryapprovalsas a reason to denyconforming residential developments, and is intended to prevent this conduct.This is precisely the reason that the HAAfocuseson ensuring that projects comply with the “applicable, objective general plan [and] zoning” standards that doexist: so that local governments cannot usesubjective, 10 discretionaryfactors to justifya denial.InHonchariw, the countyargued(like the City suggests here) that it could avoid making HAA findings because separate findings still had to be met forthe project’s tentative map. The Court of Appeal expressly rejected this argument. 200 Cal. App. 4th at 1078-79. If the HAA were interpreted to allow cities to circumvent its requirements simplybycalling aproject-level approval “rezoning” instead of the more common “use permit,” “development 10 See alsoSanta Clara Superior Court, Case No. 16CV300733, June 14, 2017, https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19664(Decision and Judgment Granting Writ of Mandamus), at3. sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 670 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 Page Ten plan,” or similar terms, this would create a massive loophole to undermine the HAA, and the Legislature’s policydirective to interpret and implement the law “to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.”Id.§ 65589.5(a)(2)(L);Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal. App. 4th 704 (1993) (noting that the HAA “is not a legislative will-o’-the-wisp” and citing legislative findings regarding the lack of affordable housing throughout the state). D.City Denial of the Project Would Violate the HAA. Accordingly, to support a denial of the Project or a reduction in its density, the City would be required to make specific findings, supported by apreponderance of the evidence on the record, that both (1) the Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety—based on objective, identified written standards in effect on the date the application was deemed complete—and (2) no other feasible method exists to satisfactorilymitigate or avoid that adverse impact.Id.§ 65589.5(j)(1). The Cityhas not attempted to make such findings, likelybecause no such evidence exists, let alone a preponderance of evidence. The unsubstantiated concerns, stated byindividual residents, that this Project would exacerbateschool crowding impacts do not come close to demonstrating a public health or safety impact within the meaning of the law. Under the school mitigation agreement that applies to the Project, the Applicant must pay specified school mitigation fees for each residential unit. In entering this agreement, the Dublin Unified School District expresslyfound that such payment “will fullymitigate Developer’s 11 impact on the school facilities of the District for the [Transit Center] Project.”Moreover, the City’s CEQA analysis for the Project finds that “No new impacts to school service are anticipated,” because payment of school impact fees will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to State law. The [Project]would result in fewer school-aged children to be accommodated in DUSD facilities than was assumed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR (1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units) and mitigation of impacts is limited bystatute to 12 payment of impact fees to the School District bythe project Applicant. In short—and even assuming it is proper for the Cityto base its decision on impacts within the purview of another governmental agency, DUSD—the only evidence in the administrative record leads to the conclusion that the Project will have no new impact on school servicesbeyond the level of growth that has been long planned at the site, and no 11 Agreement for the Mitigation of Development Impacts Upon the School Facilities of the Dublin Unified School District, effective date May 10, 2005. 12 Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis, November 8, 2017. sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 671 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 Page Eleven evidence has been put forward of any other public health or safety impact. The City cannot legallymake findings to denythe Project under the HAA.SeeSequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 715-16 (1993) (upholding thecity’s rejection of a reduced densityalternative on the grounds that it was legally prohibitedunder the HAA; the citycould not make an adverse health and safetyfinding when there “is no evidence to support such a conclusion.”) Because the City has not proposed findings to support a denial of the Project, and because it cannot legally make such findings under the HAA, the Applicant or third-partyhousing organizations would be entitled to seek reliefin state court. E.Cities Throughout the Bay Area Are FacingHAA Lawsuitsfor Improper Denial of Housing Projects. Advocacygroups and developers have recently brought multiple such lawsuits to enforce the HAA where local governments have denied or attempted to reduce the densityof residential projects.A lawsuit filed bya renters’ advocacygroup (San Francisco BayArea Renters’ Foundation) against the Cityof Berkeleyresulted in a stipulated settlement approving a housing development that the citycouncil had previouslydenied, without making required 13 findings, in violation of the HAA.Subsequently, the cityrefused to issue a demolition permit for the site—a necessaryprerequisite to enable new construction. In a court order granting the petitioners’ motion to enforce the settlement, the court rejected the city’s attempt to skirt HAA requirements bydenying the permit. The development was ultimatelyapproved 14 in September, and the citywas required to payover $50,000 in attorneys’ fees. The same advocacygroup recently filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate against the Cityof Sausalito, which denied a proposal to add a single-familydwelling to a lot that 15 already contained a two-unit dwelling. Previously, the group sued the Cityof Lafayette under the HAA for failing to approve a 315-unit multifamilydevelopment.(After the developer suspended the application and instead sought a reduced density project of 45 single-familyhomes, a Contra Costa Superior Court judge determined that there was no 16 violation of the HAA because the developer made this change voluntarily). 13 See Berkeleyside, Sept. 8, 2017, http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/09/08/long-legal-dispute-berkeley- approves-application-build-3-homes-haskell-street/. 14 The project was featured in a December 1, 2017 New York Timesarticle, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/business/economy/single-family-home.html. 15 See Marin County Superior Court. Case No. CV1704052, available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwhhKmT6GBz2VjVubnEtV2lJZ2c/view. 16 SeeSFBusiness Times, Apr. 7 2017, https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/04/07/lafayette- housing-lawsuit-sfbarf-sonja-trauss.html sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 672 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageTwelve In 2016, the Town of Los Gatos denied plans for a proposed development of 320 homes and commercial development, citing communityopposition and insufficient below-market rate 17 housing.Inresponse to the project developer’s suit against the Town, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ordered the Town to set aside its denial because it failed to make required“written findings supported bysubstantial evidence under Government Code §65589.5(j) of the HAA … The Town’s decision is therefore incomplete and not supported 18 byall necessaryfindings.”The judge noted that “discretionarydeterminations of subjective factors in the General Plan or Specific Plan cannot be the basis for disapproval of a project [under the HAA]. The legislative purpose of the HAAand Housing Element Law is to alleviate housing shortage and prevent denial of housing projects based on discretion, subjectivityor local opposition.” Although the recent spate of lawsuits has not yet resulted in published appellate court cases, the initial results indicate the trial courts are taking seriouslythe Legislature’s intent to hold local governments accountable for housing production—even before new enforcement “teeth” wereadded in 2017. IV.THE SITE COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH EVEN HIGHER DENSITY. During the public hearings to consider the Project’s design, a handful of local residents have raised concerns regarding the Project’s density, local population growth, and school crowding. Even assuming it would be appropriate for the Cityto deny the Project on the basis of student generation (it is not), if the CityCouncil made a decision to denythe Project as currentlyproposed, the end result could be even more densityon the Project site, and less control over the specific development. The trend in the state Legislature—capped by adoption of a package of 17 pro-housing bills in 2017—is to hold local jurisdictions accountable toprovide more housing, at higher densities, at a range of affordabilitylevels, and close to transit. A.Additional Density Is Available Through the Density Bonus Law. The California DensityBonus Law (“DBL”) provides a non-discretionarybonus of up to 35% increased density if the proposed project contains a certain percentage of below-market rate units. Gov’t Code § 65915. Additionally, developers mayrequest incentives, concessions, and waivers of development standards (such as height) which cities are required to accommodate, in order to encourage the creation of affordable housing under the DBL. Id. 17 SeeThe Mercury News, Sept. 2, 2016, https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/02/los-gatos-town-council- rejects-proposed-north-40-development/. 18 Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 16CV300733, June 14, 2017, https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19664(Decision and Judgment Granting Writ). sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 673 7.1.i Mayor David Haubert February20, 2018 PageThirteen As required under the DBL, Dublin has adopted its own DensityBonus regulations mirroring the state law,in Chapter 8.52 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Because of the existing vested rights under the DA, the Project did not take advantage of available density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or waivers under the DBL and local regulations. However, future projects at the site maydo so if theCitywere to denythis Project. The maximumremaining “byright”density on Site A-3 is 266 units, under the existing Stage 1 zoning and DA. If an application were submitted to maximize affordable housing onsite and take full advantage of the DBL, this could result in 35% more units— up to a total of 359, or 139 more units than the Project is seeking. B.Ministerial Project Approval Would Be Required Under SB 35. Under SB 35, adopted in 2017, cities that fail to issue enough building permits to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) are subject to a streamlined housing approval process for qualifying projects. Gov’tCode § 65913.4. When a development site is zoned for residential use residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows such uses, and meets other eligibilityrequirements, SB 35 exempts the development from CEQA review and prohibits a cityfrom denying the development. Dublin has made insufficient progress towards its RHNA goals for lower-income housing units, as announced recentlybythe state’s Department of Housing and Community Development. As a result, it is subject to SB 35 for projects that contain 50% affordable 19 units and meet other applicable requirements.Should the Citydenythe current Project, the Citymaybe required to grant ministerial approval for a fardenser project under SB 35. C.Increased Density May Become Available for Transit-OrientedHousing. SB 827, a pendingbill proposed byState Senator Wiener, would provide densitybonuses and exemptions from development standards for projects within a half mile of a major transit 20 stop, such as a BART station.As proposed, SB 827 would exempt qualifying projects “from various requirements, including maximum controls on residential density or floor area ratio, minimum automobile parking requirements, design standards that restrict the applicant’s abilityto construct the maximum number of units consistent with anyapplicable building code, and maximum height limitations.” If enacted, SB 827 would applyto development at the Project site due to its close proximity to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station (entirely within ½ mile). Under the bill’s terms, it would allow unlimited densityup to 85’ height, and no minimum parking requirements. 19 SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/SB35_StatewideDeterminationSummary01312018.pdf. 20 SB827(Wiener),https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827. sf-3866739 Packet Pg. 674 7.1.i Packet Pg. 675 7.1.i Packet Pg. 676 7.1.i Packet Pg. 677 7.1.i Packet Pg. 678 7.1.i Packet Pg. 679 7.1.i Packet Pg. 680 7.1.j Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of Specific Plan Exemption November 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00036 Packet Pg. 681 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station | Page Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of Specific Plan PLPA-2017-00036 November 8, 2017 The proposed project (Ashton at Dublin Station) includes the construction of a 220-unit multi- family residential development on a 2.36-acre (net) site located on the northwest of the corner of DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane in the City of Dublin (commonly referred to as Site A-3). At its tallest point, the building is five stories over two levels of parking (seven stories total). The proposed project meets the parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit as it proposes to provide 331 parking spaces on-site within a parking garage. The project site is located in the Dublin Transit Center, as well as the Transit Village Center subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. The proposed project is part of the pre-existing entitlements defined in the 2002 Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) Rezone and General Plan/Specific Plan amendment. The project requires approval of a Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Site Development Review Permit. The Dublin Transit Center requires 15% of the residential units be affordable units. The Camellia Place apartment project on Site A-2 has been used to satisfy the very low and low portion of the inclusionary housing requirement for the project. Ten percent (10%) of the units in the proposed project are required to be affordable to moderate income households earning between 80% and 120% of the area median income adjusted for actual household size. The project proposes to set aside 10% of the 220 units (22 units) for moderate income households. Prior CEQA Analysis Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City Council on November 19, 2002, by City Council Resolution No. 215-02. This EIR analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), a Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning, a Parcel Map and a Development Agreement. The EIR contains mitigation measures that will be applied to any development within the project area, including the proposed project. Specific mitigation measures are noted in the Initial Study for the proposed project. The EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to project exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards on a project and cumulative level, cumulative traffic impacts, and impacts to mainline freeway segments. 11/8/17 Packet Pg. 682 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station | Page The project qualifies for a statutory exemption from CEQA under Govt Code section 65457 for residential projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified (Exemption). The Exemption states: ny residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is certified, the exemption specified in this subdivision applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan. The City has relied on this Exemption for CEQA compliance for all other residential projects within the Transit Specific Plan area. This document addresses the component of the Exemption of whether an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Center EIR that requires preparation of a supplemental CEQA document (EIR or MND). Existing Entitlements Sites A, B and C comprise the portion of area of the Dublin Transit Center designated as residential. They all have the GP/EDSP land use designation of High Density Residential except for Site A-1, which is designated Medium-High Density Residential. A total of 1,500 units are allocated to sites A, B and C and the proposed project represents the last residential development project within these sites of the Dublin Transit Center project area. As shown in Table A-1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements, the total number of units constructed in Site A, including the proposed project, would be 384 units, 46 units less than the 430 units allocated. Per the Dublin Transit Center EIR, the total number of residential units constructed in Site A, B and C, including the proposed project, would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units. 11/8/17 Packet Pg. 683 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station | Page TableA-1:DublinTransitCenterDevelopment&Entitlements Site Units Permitted 1 Difference Site A 2 Site B Site C Total Notes: 1. Per Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan, as amended. 2. Includes proposed project. The proposed project would not exceed the allocation of residential units envisioned for Site A, nor the overall units allocated to Site A, B and C under the Dublin Transit Center project (1500), and is therefore consistent with the development plans as analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document As stated above, the City of Dublin has determined that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption from CEQA under Code section 65457. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan land use designation for Site A-3 and is similar in unit count to the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan. An EIR has been certified for the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan. This document finds that no event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurred since the certification of the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan EIR that requires preparation of a supplemental CEQA document (EIR or MND). Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identify the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified? There are no substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. As demonstrated in the attached document, the proposed land uses on the project site are not a substantial change to those previously proposed and analyzed, and will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. This is documented in the attached analysis. 11/8/17 Packet Pg. 684 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton at Dublin Station | Page b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken requiring major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in previous CEQA analysis involving new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified. This is documented in the attached analysis. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR was complete that shows the project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible but the Applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the Applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached analysis, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA document. Similarly, there are no new or different feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce significant effects of the project which the Applicant declines to adopt. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The CEQA document adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed project. d) Should a subsequent EIR or negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the project beyond those identified in the previous CEQA analysis, as documented in the attached analysis. Conclusion The attached document determines that the proposed Project and its impacts were previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan EIR and none of the standards for a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 are met. Therefore, the CEQA exemption under Government Code section 665457 applies to the project. The attached document, the Dublin Transit Center EIR, and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. 11/8/17 Packet Pg. 685 7.1.j Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis in Support of Specific Plan Exemption November 8, 2017 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2017-00036 Packet Pg. 686 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page Table of Contents Background & Project Description 1 Environmental Analysis 7 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location Figure 2: Dublin Transit Center Land Use Plan Figure 3: Aerial Perspective Figure 4a: Level 1 Floor Plan Figure 4b: Level 3 Floor Plan Figure 4c: Level 6 Floor Plan Figure 5a: View From Southeast Corner Campbell Lane and DeMarcus Boulevard Figure 5b: View From Southwest Corner Campbell Lane Figure 5c: View From Northwest Corner Campbell Lane Figure 5d: View From Northeast Corner DeMarcus Boulevard Figure 6: Preliminary Landscape Plan Figure 7: Preliminary Grading Plan Figure 8: Preliminary Utility Plan Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan Figure 10: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan Figure 11: Fault Trench Locations Figure 12: Flood Hazard Area Note: All figures are included at the end of the document. List of Tables Table 1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements Packet Pg. 687 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Ashton at Dublin Station Background & Project Description Project Title Ashton at Dublin Station Lead Agency City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Contact Martha Battaglia Associate Planner Phone: 925-452-2152 martha.battaglia@dublin.ca.gov Project Location & Setting The project site (APN 986-0034-009-00) is located in eastern Dublin, bounded by Campbell Lane to the west and south, DeMarcus Boulevard to the east, and a proposed shared private drive to the north (just south of Dublin Boulevard). See Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Location. The project site is paved and has previously been used as a parking lot and a construction staging site. Project Applicant Ashton at Dublin Station, LLC 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 General Plan Designation High Density Residential Packet Pg. 688 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Zoning PD Planned Development (PA 00-013/ORD. 21-02) Project Description The project Applicant has applied for a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan Site Development Review Permit (SDR), and Tentative Map. Figures illustrating the proposed project are shown at the end of this document and are referenced therein. The 2.36-acre project site is bounded by DeMarcus Boulevard to the east, Campbell Lane to the south and west, and a private through-block drive to the north. The Iron Horse Regional Trail runs northwest to southeast next to the project site's southwest corner. Currently, the project site is paved with minimal topographical change other than slight slopes for drainage. Residential developments surround the project site to the west, north and east. A BART surface parking lot and a PG&E electrical power substation is located across Campbell Lane to the south. As shown in Figure 2: Dublin Transit Center Land Use Plan, the project site is located within the 91-acre district known as the Dublin Transit Center. The Transit Center project includes the development of a high-density mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented development adjacent to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. On-going development has included removing most of the existing BART surface parking lots. Future construction of new land uses includes up to two million square feet of office space, a maximum of 1,500 medium-high and high-density residential dwellings, and up to 70,000 square feet of ancillary retail commercial uses. A five-story BART parking garage containing 1,700 spaces has been constructed adjacent to Interstate 580 (I-580). The proposed project would add a new 220-unit residential development project with associated streetscape improvements to the Transit Center. The project site is located five minut walk from BART, with the main entry and entry plaza located at the project site's southeast corner to encourage direct pedestrian circulation to both public transit and the nearby Campbell Green park. As shown in Table 1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements, the total number of units constructed in Site A, including the proposed project, would be 384 units, 46 units less than the 430 units allocated. The total number of units constructed within Sites A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project, would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units. Packet Pg. 689 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Table1:DublinTransitCenterDevelopment&Entitlements Site Units Permitted 1 Difference Site A 2 Site B Site C Total Notes: 1. Per Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Development Plan, as amended. 2. Includes proposed project. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project would not exceed the allocation of residential units envisioned for Site A, nor the greater Dublin Transit Center project, and is therefore consistent with the development plans as analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Building Program and Design As shown in Figure 3: Aerial Perspective, the proposed gross building area is 404,765 square feet, with +/- 80% lot coverage. It includes 220 residential units and a two-level podium parking garage. Residential units will be constructed on five floors over the garage. Residential units will also be constructed on the north and east sides of the first two levels, surrounding the internal parking structure. In addition to residential units and associated support areas, the project includes private amenity spaces; including two building lobbies, two podium level roof courtyards and a swimming pool, and a level six private community room and outdoor roof terrace. Figure 4a, b, and c show the floor plans for levels 1, 3 and 6. The parking garage will accommodate 331 cars. The parking ratio will equal or exceed the City required 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. Fifty spaces are designated as visitor spaces. Six ADA compliant accessible car spaces and one ADA van space are located on the ground floor. The Dublin Transit Center requires 15% of the residential units be affordable units. The Camellia Place apartment project on Site A-2 has been used to satisfy the very low and low portion of the inclusionary housing requirement for the project. Ten percent (10%) of the units in the proposed project are required to be set aside for moderate income households. The project proposes to set aside 10% of the 220 units (22 units) for moderate income households. A moderate-income household is defined by the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance as households earning between 80% and 120% of the area median income. Packet Pg. 690 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page As shown in Figure 2: Dublin Transit Center Land Use Plan, the project site is surrounded on three sides by medium-high and high-density housing projects at a range of heights. These include: Site A-1 (Tribeca) a three-story 52-unit medium-density residential project to the west of Campbell Lane Site A-2 (Camellia Place) a four-story (three-story over one level of parking) 112-unit high-density residential project to the north. Site B-1 (Elan at Dublin Station) a seven story (five-story over two levels of parking) 257- unit high-density residential project located east DeMarcus Boulevard. Site B-2 (Eclipse at Dublin Station) a five story 305-unit high-density residential project located on Dublin Boulevard. Site C-1 (Avalon Dublin Station) a five-story 505-unit high-density residential project located east DeMarcus Boulevard and south of Campbell Green Park. These residential buildings include a variety of façade materials and colors, and include roof forms ranging from shallow hipped to flat. The developments to the north and west of the project site include stoops and direct street entries to some ground floor units. The proposed project massing is consistent with the scale of the adjacent buildings, with the tallest masses located at the east side of the project site opposite the adjacent buildings along the east side of DeMarcus Boulevard (Elan and Avalon projects), and the lowest masses located on the west side of the project site opposite the lower height townhouses across Campbell Lane (Tribeca). The proposed building height range from three- to five-stories over a two-story podium for a maximum of seven stories, and 81-feet in height. The project's two story parking podium is wrapped on the north and east sides by residential units and other functional spaces. To the south, the two parking levels are visually integrated with three levels of residential units above. To the west, in response to the low-scale residential buildings west across Campbell Lane, most of the residential mass above parking is set back five feet. Along the project's north side, there are residential units at the ground level with unit entries and stoops to enhance the residential scale and character established by the Camellia Place project across the street. The project includes a variety of windows, exterior materials, and colors. Facade treatments include stucco, fiber cement and metal accent and infill panels, painted metal window surrounds, limited areas of storefront glazing, and metal and translucent glass entry canopies. Balconies and garage screening inserts include translucent perforated metal screening. Simulated renderings of the proposed project are shown in Figure 5 from the four corners surrounding the project site. Packet Pg. 691 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Landscape Design As shown in Figure 6: Preliminary Landscape Plan, a 20-foot building setback is required at the project's east side along DeMarcus Boulevard due to an existing stormwater easement. This easement area is planted with a variety of taller flowering shrubs and succulents that delineate the space while avoiding the use of fences or walls. Colored concrete unit pavers and integral colored concrete connect the project site with the rest of the Dublin Transit Center, while helping to define the main entries and pedestrian promenade along DeMarcus Boulevard. Benches and raised planters are located throughout the landscape public spaces. Bio-retention planters are used to define the private entries along the north side. A three-foot landscape strip separates the garage from the sidewalk along Campbell Lane. The landscape strip is planted with a variety of drought tolerant flowering shrubs and succulents and a variety of aromatic plants. Flowering vines are proposed along the garage facade. Pedestrian and Vehicular Access As shown in Figure 4a: Level 1 Floor Plan, to facilitate pedestrian connectivity between the project and nearby pedestrian destinations to the south and southwest (i.e. the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Campbell Green Park), the primary entry is located near the project's southeast corner at the intersection of DeMarcus Boulevard and Campbell Lane. The primary entry lobby is open to two floors and is setback to accommodate a pedestrian plaza, which includes landscaped terraces that function as stepped planters and provide public seating. A second entry lobby is located mid-block on the north side of the building. Similar to the primary entry, the building is setback creating a second smaller pedestrian plaza with similar landscaping. Vehicular entry to the parking garage is from Campbell Lane on the project's south side, near the primary entry plaza. Project Engineering Grading The project site is essentially flat. Earthwork would include minimal grading and contouring to accommodate drainage and elevation requirements. Regrading would result in elevations contours changing from 334 feet (above mean sea level) along the southern boundary, to 337 feet along the northern boundary. The project will require the cut of 600 cubic yards of soil, and the fill of 1,700 cubic yards of soil; for a net import of 1,100 cubic yards. See Figure 7: Preliminary Grading Plan. Packet Pg. 692 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page The project site is located within a 500-year flood hazard area, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Water and Sewer Existing domestic water mains available for connection adjacent to the project site include a 12- inch main in DeMarcus Boulevard, and an eight-inch main on Campbell Lane. As part of the proposed project, a new domestic water service lateral will connect to the eight-inch main on Campbell Lane at the northwest corner of the project site. The proposed project will utilize an existing six-inch recycled water main on Campbell Lane. The project would use recycled water for landscape irrigation. A new proposed sanitary sewer lateral would connect with the existing eight-inch sewer main on Campbell Lane. See Figure 8: Preliminary Utility Plan. Stormwater The project site is currently paved with asphalt. Essentially all of the stormwater falling on to the project site sheet flows untreated into the Cittorm drain system. As shown in Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, stormwater from the roof (64,671 square feet) will be collected and passed through several flow-through planter boxes that contain plants, treatment soil, and gravel. Once treated, this stormwater will flow into the existing 18-inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. Stormwater from the ground level runoff (19,870 square feet) will flow into an underground stormwater treatment vault, and then into the existing 18-inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. Essentially, the volume of stormwater flowing into the Cit storm drainage system will remain unchanged; however, the rate of flow will be slower by the use of the flow-through planter boxes and the stormwater treatment vault. Erosion Control During construction, a construction fence and fiber roll will be installed around the entire perimeter of the project site. Inlet sediment barriers, per City standards, will be installed on all existing storm drain structures until the project site is stabilized (see Figure 10: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan). Project Approvals The proposed project includes a Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, a Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Review Permit for the construction of a 220-unit residential building. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the approvals required for the proposed project. City Council action will include adoption of the Exemption for CEQA review and approval of the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezone, the Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review Permit. Packet Pg. 693 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Environmental Analysis The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project per the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. For convenience, this analysis uses the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework for analysis. As such, the check-boxes in the column labeled No Impact/No New Imp in the tables below indicates that no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. There are no project changes, new information or change circumstances that result in a new or substantially increase in severity of a significant impact from those identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. No standards for requiring supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met. Aesthetics Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Previous CEQA documents Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 for Impact 4.4-1 encouraged the inclusion of breaks in building designs and view corridors to provide views of Mt. Diablo to the north, considering the need for noise control and the intent of the Dublin Transit Center to provide a compact transit- oriented design. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 requires that a condition of Site Development Review for individual projects, the City of Dublin shall require submittal of lighting plans for all non-residential Packet Pg. 694 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page projects along Iron Horse Parkway to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure that no spill-over of unwanted light onto adjacent residential areas shall occur. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Scenic vistas, views No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that the greatest impact to scenic vistas and views would on existing background views to Mount Diablo and surrounding ridgelines. Existing views of the project site are surrounded by residential developments to the west, north, and east. A BART surface parking lot and an electrical power substation is located across Campbell Lane to the south. Because obstruction of distant ridgeline views would be similar to the view obstructions caused by the surrounding developments and analyzed in the EIR, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas and views beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Scenic resources No New Impact. The project site is located north of the I- 580 freeway, which is a local scenic highway, but is located on the northern portion of the Dublin Transit Center and is not highly visible from the freeway due to intervening buildings between the project site and the Interstate 580 freeway. A view corridor would be preserved along the western property line for views from the Interstate 580 freeway to the northwest, as required by Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. No scenic resources exist on the project site, including but not limited to significant stands of tree, rock outcroppings or bodies of water, so there would be no impact with respect to damage to scenic resources. No public parks, playgrounds or other public gathering places exist on the project site so that scenic vistas could be viewed. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Packet Pg. 695 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page (c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding area No New Impact. Simulated renderings of the proposed project are shown in Figure 5 from the four corners surrounding the project site. The proposed land uses and their building heights and scale, are consistent with those land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed building heights are also consistent with height limits as identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The proposed project includes constructing a multi-family residential development with parking, landscaping and other improvements where none now exist. Because the proposed project is consistent in building height, massing, and scale analyzed in the EIR, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the visual character of the project site or surrounding area beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed project result in a slight increase in daytime and nighttime light and glare. The main sources of daytime glare would be from sunlight reflecting from structures with reflective surfaces, such as windows. The main sources of nighttime light and glare would be from additional lighting, including, but not limited to, internal and external building lights from proposed residential uses, street lighting, site lighting, and lights associated with vehicular travel (i.e., vehicle headlights). The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that there is a potential for lighting from non-residential uses to spill over into residential areas, creating a nuisance to Transit Center residents. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 requires that a condition of Site Development Review for individual projects, the City of Dublin shall require submittal of lighting plans for all non-residential projects along Iron Horse Parkway to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure that no spill-over of unwanted light onto adjacent residential areas shall occur. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to light and glare beyond what has been analyzed the Dublin Transit Center EIR, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Packet Pg. 696 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Agricultural and Forestry Resources Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation New Significant Significant Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Previous CEQA documents Dublin Transit Center EIR No significant impacts to agricultural or forestry resources were identified in this document. Project Impacts (a-c) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning No New Impact. No significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in previous CEQA document listed above. No new conditions have been identified in this document with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a nonagricultural use. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than were analyzed in previous CEQA document for this site. The City of Dublin has previously zoned the project site for residential uses. No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the project site nor are any agricultural operations on-going. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to farmland beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Packet Pg. 697 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Air Quality Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following . Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following significant air quality impacts and mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 reduced impacts related to construction emission from construction equipment (see Impact 4.2-1) to a less-than-significant level. Specific items listed in this measure required contractors to water construction area and stockpiled material and other items based on BAAQMD standards. Impact 4.2-3 noted that project air emissions of ozone would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for regional impacts. No mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than significant level and this impact remained significant and unavoidable. Packet Pg. 698 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Consistent with air quality plans No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would represent fewer dwelling units assumed as the basis for the regional Clean Air Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), since the proposed amount of development has been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of the Cit General Plan, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b, c) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that proposed development would result in a significant and unavoidable emission of air emissions exceeding the applicable BAAQMD standards. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 was recommended to reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed project is a high-density mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented development. These characteristics provide for much higher internal and non-auto travel mode percentages compared to suburban residential or commercial development. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors No New Impact. The health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was known in 2002 although it was not analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The 1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to residences living close to freeways. (See, studies cited in CARB's 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage Lead Agencies to address impacts to sensitive receptors (such as residences) to exposure of high levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as a high-volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines, p. 47). Packet Pg. 699 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page BAAQMD recommends that these impacts should be analyzed based on best available information. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in effect in 2002 also listed exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants as a potentially significant impact. This significance threshold was included in the Dublin Transit Center EIR (p. 48). Since potential health impacts due to exposure to diesel exhaust was known or could have been known in 2002, the risks of toxic air contaminants from diesel exhaust is not new information that requires additional analysis under CEQA. Similarly, recently updated information from CARB and BAAQMD on health impacts of diesel exhaust and the BAAQMD CEQA significance standards do not trigger the requirement for supplemental environmental review under CEQA section 21166. These new standards do not identify Toxic Air Contaminants as a "new significant impact." This adverse health impact was already known and recent new information only refined the type and level of analysis. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to sensitive receptors from pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Biological Resources Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Packet Pg. 700 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR This Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following significant biological impacts. Impact 4.3-1 noted an impact with loss of Congdon's spikeweed and potentially four other special-status plants on the project site. This impact was reduced to a than- significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 that requires project Applicants to avoid populations of spikeweed or, if not feasible, an off-site mitigation program is to be created. Measures to avoid, preserve or mitigate other special-status plants identified and required to be implemented. Impact 4.3-2 found a significant impact with respect to California red-legged frogs (CRLF) or their habitat. This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. This mitigation measure required a CRLF preconstruction survey consultation with the USFWS. If populations of CRLF are identified appropriate protection plans were required to be prepared with necessary permits from appropriate regulatory agencies. Impact 4.3-3 noted an impact regarding burrowing owls. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring a preconstruction survey on a development site no more than 30 days prior to grading. If owls are found, a biologist shall establish an exclusion zone around occupied burrow until it is confirmed that the burrow is unoccupied. Packet Pg. 701 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species No New Impact. No changes have occurred to the project site since certification of the Dublin Transit Center in 2002. Mitigation measures contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR will continue to apply to the project site. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, natural community, or wetlands No New Impact. As described in the Dublin Transit Center EIR, there are no wetlands or riparian features on or adjacent to the project site. There would therefore be no impacts to wetlands or riparian habitats. Since there are no streams on the project site, the project site is not subject to the City's Stream Preservation Plan. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to riparian habitat, natural community or wetlands beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife No New Impact. The project site is located in a substantially urbanized area and surrounded by paved roads or parcels of land that have been developed that would preclude significant wildlife migration. There are no creeks or streams on the project site that would allow for migration of fish species. The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified this impact as less than significant (Impact 4.3-4). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to migratory fish or wildlife beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. No New Impact. No trees are present on the project site, and there are no impacts regarding local tree preservation ordinances or policies. Packet Pg. 702 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. Because no HCP or NCCP was identified in the prior EIRs and none applies at present, there would be no new or significantly more severe impacts to tree preservation or any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Cultural Resources Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Packet Pg. 703 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR Impact 4.4-1 contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR found a potentially significant impact with respect to historical, archeological and Native American resources on the project site. This impact was reduced by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 that required, if archeological, archeological or Native American artifacts are encountered during construction, work on the project shall cease until compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on the project may commence under the guidance of an approved resource protection plan. The County Coroner is to be contacted if human remains are uncovered. The proposed project will be required to adhere to this applicable mitigation measure as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Historic resources No New Impact. The site is vacant and contains no built structures. As a result, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to historic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b, c) Archaeological or paleontological resources No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. None of these pre-historic sites were identified by the Dublin Transit Center EIR within or near the project site. The Dublin Transit Center EIR noted a potentially significant cultural resource impact regarding unidentified historic, archeological and Native American resources and the project remains subject to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1. The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified no known cultural resources for the project site. However, mitigation for potential but currently unidentified resources should they be discovered during construction is provided in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The project remains subject to these prior adopted mitigations. With adherence to previous mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Packet Pg. 704 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page (d) Human remains No New Impact. The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR regarding potential impacts to human remains. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to cultural impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Geology and Soils Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code Packet Pg. 705 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified two mitigation measures for the project. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 reduced the impact related to seismic hazards (Impact 4.5-2) to a less-than-significant level. This measure required completion of a site-specific geotechnical investigation prior to development of individual projects. Future projects are required to be consistent with current building codes. Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 reduced the impact related to expansive soils to a less than- significant level (Impact 4.5-3). This measure required site-specific geotechnical reports to address expansive soils and provide appropriate engineering and construction techniques to reduce damage from expansive soils. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Seismic hazards No New Impact. During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, moderate to strong ground shaking can be expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake could result in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction and differential compaction. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 will require completion of a site-specific geotechnical investigation prior to development of individual projects. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seismic hazards beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Packet Pg. 706 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page (b) Erosion/topsoil loss No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements on the project site would slightly modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. The project will also be required to implement the erosion controls from the RWQCB measures as enforced by the City of Dublin. The City's requirement to implement site-specific erosion and other controls will reduce erosion from the project site to a less-than-specific level. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to erosion/topsoil loss beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c-d) Soil stability No New Impact. Consistent with Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigations Measures 4.5-2 and 4.5- 3, and standard City development procedures, the report contains methods to minimize impacts from liquefaction and other soil hazards for future site improvements on the project site. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic No New Impact. As assumed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR, proposed residences on the project site would be connected to e x i s t i n g sanitary sewers on the adjacent roadways. Because the project site would be connected to existing sanitary sewers, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Packet Pg. 707 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation New Significant Significant Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Since certification of the Dublin Transit Center EIR in 2002, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. Because these previous EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)). Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid-2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Dublin Transit Center EIR in 2002. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No Packet Pg. 708 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Even if the impact of the project's greenhouse gas emissions was required to be considered under CEQA, it would be less than significant since the project is consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan. In October 2010, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan in accordance with CEQA requirements and BAAQMD's CEQA Guidance. The CitClimate Action Plan was subsequently updated in October 2013. The GHG emissions from the Dublin Transit Center project were included in the Climate Action Plan. The City adopted a Negative Declaration for the Climate Action Plan finding the impacts of the Climate Action Plan would be less than significant. The Climate Action Plan serves as the City's qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for analysis of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the Climate Action Plan will reduce the impact from activities under the Climate Action Plan to less than significant under CEQA (i.e., the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact). Therefore, CEQA allows the Climate Action Plan to be used for the cumulative impact analysis for future projects and development in the City covered by the Climate Action Plan. As such, it satisfies CEQA review requirements for the project. Since the project emissions were included in the Climate Action Plan and the project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the Specific Plan and included in the Climate Action Plan, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e. less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130 and BAAQMD adopted CEQA Guidelines and GHG Significance Thresholds. In fact, the project is exactly the type of project which reduces greenhouse gas emissions- an infill, transit-oriented, high-density residential project as part of an overall mixed use development. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Source(s) None. Packet Pg. 709 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation New Significant Significant Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Packet Pg. 710 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified two mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 reduced the impact related to release of hazardous materials on the project site remaining from past military uses (Impact 4.1-1) to a than- significant level. This measure required completion of additional environmental analysis (Phase I and/or Phase II reports) and completion of any clean-up of recognized hazardous materials on the project site. Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 reduced the impact related to risk of upset from a nearby petroleum pipeline adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail to a less-than significant level (Impact 4.6-2). This measure required future developers on Sites A and C within the Dublin Transit Center to identify the presence of the petroleum pipeline to avoid damage by construction equipment. Future residences on Sites A and C are also required to maintain a minimum 50-foot setback from the pipeline to the nearest habitable structure. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials No New Impact. There would be no impact to the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the project site. Proposed land uses on the project site would not use, store or transport significant quantities of hazardous materials. To the extent there are potentially hazardous materials used in construction, the impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment No New Impact. The Phase I ESA report prepared for the project prepared pursuant to Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 did not identify any significant hazards to the public or the environment as a result of release of hazardous materials. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR will ensure that release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Packet Pg. 711 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Pursuant to the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-2, development on the project site is required to maintain a minimum 50-foot wide structural setback from the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline that runs adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. This requirement has been met as shown on Figure 2: Project Aerial Diagram. The project includes residential development as assumed in the Transit Center EIR and through the Phase I ESA, project design and conditions of approval, has complied or will comply with the adopted mitigation measures. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the potential release of hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school No New Impact. No schools exist or are planned within one quarter mile of the project area. Because no schools exist or are planned within one quarter mile of the project area, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emitting hazardous materials within an existing or proposed school beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Listed as a hazardous materials site No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR examined the potential for hazardous materials extensively and the project site is not listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of February 26, 2012 (last update). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to listed hazardous materials sites beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e-f) Proximity to a public or private airport No New Impact. The project site lies north of the Airport Influence Area of Livermore Municipal Airport and is not included in the Airport Influence Area. Because the project site is not within proximity to a public or private airport, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public or private airports beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (g) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No New Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be Packet Pg. 712 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page blocked. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires No New Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area of Eastern Dublin and contains no flammable structures or vegetation, as identified in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Properties east, west, and north are developed and there is no possible exposure from wildland fires. As a result, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to exposing people or structures to wildland fires beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (for example, the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the Packet Pg. 713 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The following impacts and mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality were identified in this EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 reduced the impact related to non-point source pollution (Impact 4.7-3) to a less-than-significant level. This measure required future individual site developers to prepare and implement erosion control plans. If needed, additional provisions may be required for the proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials. Associated Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 required each developer to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to Regional Water Board standards. Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 reduced the construction impact related to short-term increases of soil erosion from wind and water (Impact 4.7-4) to a less-than significant level. This mitigation required individual project Applicants to prepare and implement erosion control plans for the project construction period, consistent with Regional Water Board standards. Measures included but were not limited to revegetation of Packet Pg. 714 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page graded areas, protection of stockpiled material, constructing sediment ponds and related items. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed development project would alter impervious surfaces to the undeveloped site that would decrease the net amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. The City of Dublin requires new development proposals to adhere to the most recent surface water quality standards adopted by the RWQCB. The Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g requires that stormwater discharges not cause and increase in erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. For this project, the project is proposing to install flow-through planter boxes that contain plants, treatment soil and gravel. The planters are located in the open courtyard areas and the perimeter areas at the building. Once treated, this stormwater will flow into the existing 18- inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. Stormwater from the ground level runoff will flow into an underground stormwater treatment vault, and then into the existing 18-inch storm drain on Campbell Lane. These stormwater systems, as required by the RWQCB, will help to ensure that water quality and waste discharge standards are met. With adherence to applicable mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water quality or waste discharge requirements beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies No New Impact. The existing site provide minimal groundwater recharge. Although the currently vacant site would be converted to an urban use, a small portion of the project site would remain as open space, which would allow some recharge of the underground aquifer. The proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7s groundwater recharge program. Zone policy is to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its imported surface water or locally-stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley. Compliance with this would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for Packet Pg. 715 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to groundwater supplies beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: erosion/siltation No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would be constructed on the project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces, consistent with the development assumptions in the prior EIRs. The project Applicant is subject to comply with the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-3, which requires project Applicants to implement an erosion control plan to minimize polluted runoff reduced impacts related to changed drainage patterns to a less-than- significant level (see Figure 10: Preliminary Erosion Control Plan). With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to erosion/siltation beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: flooding No New Impact. Construction of the project would not significantly change drainage patterns and proposed storm drain facilities will be adequately sized for project runoff (see item "e" below). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to flooding beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Runoff exceed drainage capacity, or add pollution No New Impact. The amount of stormwater flowing into the Citstorm drainage system will remain unchanged; however, the rate of flow will be slower using flow-through planter boxes and the stormwater treatment vault. Furthermore, the proposed project is subject to adopted Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-3. This mitigation measure requires individual project Applicants to prepare and implement erosion control plans. In compliance with existing EIR mitigation measures, the project Applicant proposes the construction of both bio-retention flow-through planter boxes and a stormwater treatment vault to comply with both City requirements and previous EIR mitigation measures. The proposed storm drain facilities are adequately sized for project runoff and designed to filter out pollutants. In addition, the project Applicant proposes to install full trash capture devices to meet the MRP Trash Reduction requirements. Packet Pg. 716 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to drainage capacity, or additional pollution beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (g, h, i) 100-year flood hazard, dam/levee failure No New Impact. The project site is located within a 500-year flood hazard area, but outside of a 100-year flood hazard area. Compliance with the City of Dublin's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan will ensure that hazards to visitors and residents on the project site as a result of dam failure will be reduced to a less-than significant level by providing an emergency evacuation plan in the event of a dam failure. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to 100-year flood hazard and to dam or levee failure beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No New Impact. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on the project site. There would be no impact with implementation of the proposed project. Since the project site and surrounding properties are relatively flat (less than 2 percent cross slope), no impacts are anticipated with respect to landslide hazard. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Land Use and Planning Potentially No Significant Impact Unless Potentially Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact Packet Pg. 717 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Physically divide an established community No New Impact. The project site is located in the Eastern Dublin planning area. The project reflects the type and location of development assumed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. As noted in the land use discussion in the Dublin Transit Center EIR (see, e.g., Impact 4.8-2), the project site is consistent with existing land uses and would not divide an established community. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to an established community beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Conflict with general plan No New Impact. The proposed project would be consistent with environmental goals and policies contained in the Citneral Plan. As shown in Table 1: Dublin Transit Center Development & Entitlements (in the Project Description), the total number of units constructed in Site A, including the proposed project, would be 384 units, 46 units less than total 430 units allocated. The total number of units constructed within Site A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project, would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units. Packet Pg. 718 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page The proposed project would not exceed the allocation of residential units envisioned for Site A, nor the greater Dublin Transit Center project, and is therefore consistent with the development plans as analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts due to conflict with environmental protection policies in the General Plan beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to an HCP or NCCP beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Mineral Resources Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Packet Pg. 719 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR indicated that significant deposits of minerals do not exist on the project site, so there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mineral resources that would occur beyond what has been previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Noise Potentially No Significant Impact Unless /No Potentially Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Impact Issues Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Packet Pg. 720 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 reduced short-term construction noise (Impact 4.9-1) to a less-than-significant level by requiring individual project Applicants to prepare Construction Noise Management Plans and to have these approved by the Dublin Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Each plan shall identify specific noise reduction measures, including listing of construction hours, use of mufflers on construction equipment, on-site speed limits for construction equipment and similar measures. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 reduced impacts related to permanent noise on residential uses (Impact 4.9-2) to a less-than-significant level by requiring individual residential developers to prepare acoustic reports that lists specific measures to be taken to reduce noise to City exposure limits, including but not limited to window glazing, ventilation systems and noise barriers. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 reduced impacts related to helicopter overflights from Camp Parks RFTA (Impact 4.9-3) to a less-than-significant level by requiring notification of such overflights to future residents. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards No New Impact. As analyzed in previous EIR, development of proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the project site and future residences would be subject to traffic noise from vehicles surrounding roadway, in particular Dublin Boulevard to the north and Interstate 580 to the south. Consistent with the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-2, the Applicant is required to complete a site-specific acoustic report prior to issuance of a building permit. The report will include any specific measures that are necessary to reduce noise to City standards. Packet Pg. 721 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Adherence to these previous noise mitigation measures, noise standards in the Dublin General Plan, and the City Noise Ordinance, will reduce noise to a less-than-significant level. No new or more significant noise impacts have been identified beyond what has been previously analyzed. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Camp Parks RFTA to be less than significant after mitigation to the Transit Center project area. The mitigation requires providing written notice to future residents will be implemented through conditions of approval on the project. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to exposure from noise exceeding standards beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise No New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby residents. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Permanently increasing ambient noise levels No New Impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that future exposure of housing nearest to Dublin Boulevard and I-580 would be subject to potentially significant noise levels. Future traffic generated by the proposed project would contribute to future exposure of housing to future roadway noise. However, the impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in permanent noise levels are within the scope of the impacts associated with the project analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The type and intensity of development proposed as part of the proposed project, and the noise generated and associated impacts on residential uses, have been identified and analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. The project Applicant would be required to comply with Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-2, requiring individual residential developers to prepare acoustic reports to reduce noise to City exposure limits. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to permanently increasing ambient noise levels beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Packet Pg. 722 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page (d) Substantial temporary noise increase No New Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term construction noise. The project Applicant would be required to comply with the Dublin Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, requiring individual project Applicants to prepare Construction Noise Management Plans that identify specific construction noise reduction measures to minimize noise to existing and future housing, as well as adhere to construction hour limitations. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with a substantial temporary noise increase beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e, f) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport No New Impact. Based on Exhibit 3-2 contained in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), the project site lies north of the noise compatibility zone for this airport. The project site would therefore not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport. However, the Dublin Transit Center EIR notes that the project site could be subject to potential noise from helicopter operations from Camp Parks RFTA and the project Applicant's adherence to Transit Center EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 by requiring notification of such overflights to future residents. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from aviation noise beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012. Population and Housing Potentially No Significant Impact Unless Potentially Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation New Significant Significant Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either Packet Pg. 723 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Population growth No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected properties has long been envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Transit Center Stage 1 Zoning, as described in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Approval of the proposed project would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than currently approved in the Dublin Transit Center project area for Sites A, B and C (1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units). There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population growth beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b-c) Housing and resident displacement No New Impact. Since the project site is vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced should the project be approved and implemented. No houses were on the project site when the prior EIRs were certified. Because the project site is vacant, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to housing displacement beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Packet Pg. 724 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Source(s) City of Dublin Web site. Accessed September 12, 2017. Available at http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/238/Community-and-Economic-Profile City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Public Services Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Fire No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent daytime population on the project site. Features will be incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements, which assist in reducing impacts. These features include installation of on-site fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers, installation of new fire hydrants that meet the minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. Packet Pg. 725 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page As part of the CitDevelopment Fee Program, the project Applicant will be required to pay an impact fee for fire facilities to serve new development in the City. This impact fee relates to funding new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to fire services beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Police No New Impact. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected should the project be approved and constructed. This increase in calls for service would be off- set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from the Dublin Police Services, including the Non-Residential Security Ordinance. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to police services beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Schools No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to State law. The currently proposed project would result in fewer schoo aged children to be accommodated in DUSD school facilities than was assumed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR (1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units) and mitigation of impacts is limited by statute to payment of impact fees to the School District by the project Applicant. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to schools beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d, e) Other public facilities No New Impact. Approval and construction of the project would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands will be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin and therefore impacts would be less-than-significant. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, including payment of fees, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to other public facilities beyond Packet Pg. 726 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. 2017. Fire Services and Prevention. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://dublinca.gov/22/Fire-Services-Prevention. City of Dublin. 2017. Police Services. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/91/Police-Services. City of Dublin. 2017. Schools. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://www.dublin.ca.gov/401/Schools. City of Dublin. 2017. Parks and Community Services. Accessed September 13, 2017. Available at http://www.dublin.ca.gov/90/Parks-Community-Services. City of Dublin. 2017. Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study Update. Accessed October 23, 2017. Available at http://dublinca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16547. City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Recreation Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR Impacts to parks and recreational facilities were found to be than-significant and no mitigation measures were contained in this EIR. Packet Pg. 727 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Project Impacts (a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new recreation facilities No New Impact. As envisioned in the Dublin Transit Center EIR for the project site, approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site permanent population currently on the project site. However, there would be fewer residents at build-out as previously envisioned in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Consistent with City Zoning requirements, the Applicant proposes to provide private recreation amenities on the project site and will be required to pay City of Dublin Community Facility Fees to assist in providing off- site parks. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to parks beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Transportation/Traffic Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Packet Pg. 728 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Previous CEQA Documents Transit Center EIR The Dublin Transit Center EIR identified the following significant supplemental impacts and mitigation measures related to traffic and transportation: Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 required roadway improvements for the Scarlett Drive extension, the Dublin Boulevard / Dougherty Road intersection and the Hacienda Drive/Interstate 580 westbound off-ramp to reduce impacts related to project traffic on external roadway intersections to a less-than-significant level (Impact 4.11-1). Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 reduced the impact of parking on the Transit Center site with respect to future BART parking (Impact 4.11-4). This measure required the City to post all on-street parking within the Transit Center for limited parking hours (2-4 hours). Individual development projects are to be designed to limit BART parking. Mitigation Measure 4.11-3 partially but not fully reduced impacts related to cumulative traffic (Impact 4.11-5). This mitigation measure required additional roadway improvements to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection which was found to be infeasible. Mitigation Measure 4.11-4 reduced local roadway segments impacts (Impact 4.11-6) to a less-than-significant level by requiring the widening of Hacienda Drive between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive from three to four lanes and the Scarlett Drive extension should be constructed between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. No feasible mitigation was found to reduce impacts to mainline freeway operations in the year 2025 (Impact 4.11-7) and this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. Packet Pg. 729 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a-b, f) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, including congestion management plans No new impact. The Dublin Transit Center EIR considered the development of the project site with residential land uses on the local and regional roadway and freeway networks and adopted mitigation measures to address transportation impacts. The total number of units constructed within Sites A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units as analyzed in the previous CEQA document. Therefore, the proposed project, in context to the greater Dublin Transit Center project would generate fewer daily and AM and PM peak hour trips than previously analyzed. Furthermore, the City of Dublin has adopted a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program which requires developers to contribute their 'fair-share' of sub-regional traffic improvements required for new development within the Eastern Dublin area, which includes the Dublin Transit Center project area. The project is within the scope and level of development and impacts and is required to participate in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, including payment of fees, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to applicable transportation plans standards, including congestion management plans, beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (c) Change in air traffic patterns No New Impact. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves residential development and is located outside of the Livermore Airport general referral area. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air traffic patterns beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The proposed project would be required to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mobility design features beyond what has been analyzed in Packet Pg. 730 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (e) Result in inadequate emergency access No New Impact. Fire access to the building will be along the southern property boundary (Campbell Lane). No impacts would result with respect to emergency access. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency access beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (f) Conflict with adopted alternative transportation plans No New Impact. The proposed project would include on-site bicycle parking and sidewalks providing connections between proposed buildings and nearby streets. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit, pedestrian use or similar features were identified in previous CEQA reviews for the subject property. Furthermore, the project proposes to implement/construct the following items consistent with the CitComplete Streets Policy: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking spaces ADA compliant sidewalks and curb ramps Emergency vehicle access to the project site With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to adopted alternative transportation plans beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Complete Streets Principals adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin Resolution No. 199-12, December 4, 2013. City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially No Significant Impact Unless /No Potentially Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation Significant Significant New Issues Issues Incorporated Impact Impact Packet Pg. 731 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Previous CEQA Documents There are no applicable mitigation measures from the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources No New Impact. The site is vacant and contains no historically significant resources. There would therefore be no impacts to historical resources. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to historical resources beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 No New Impact. The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. There are no known significant Tribal Cultural Resources on the Project site. Impact 4.4-1 contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR found a potentially significant impact with respect to unknown Native American resources on the project site. This impact was reduced by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 that required, if archeological, archeological or Native American artifacts are encountered during construction, work on the project shall cease until compliance with CEQA Packet Pg. 732 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA Analysis | Page 46 Guidelines Section 15064.5 is demonstrated. Work on the project may commence under the guidance of an approved resource protection plan. The County Coroner is to be contacted if human remains are uncovered. The proposed project will be required to adhere to this applicable mitigation measure as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. With adherence to required mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources beyond those previously analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially No Significant Impact Unless /No Potentially Less Than ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Impact Issues Impact 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (V.4) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provide existing commitments? Packet Pg. 733 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page Potentially No Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than /No ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant New Issues Incorporated Issues Impact Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Previous CEQA Documents Dublin Transit Center EIR The following utility services impacts and mitigation measures were noted in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4 reduced impacts to provision of electrical service to the Transit Center site (Impact 4.12-8) to a less-than-significant level by requiring Applicants for individual projects to submit a will-serve letters to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the Dublin Transit Center EIR. Project Impacts (a, e) Wastewater treatment requirements and facilities No New Impact. The total number of units constructed within Sites A, B and C of the Dublin Transit Center project area, including the proposed project would be 1,451 units, 49 units less than the total allocation of 1,500 units as analyzed in the previous CEQA document. The addition of wastewater flows from the proposed project would not cause the plant to exceed local, state, and federal water quality standards. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to wastewater treatment requirements beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (b) Require construction of new water and wastewater facilities No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing mains that currently exist within the Dublin Transit Center would need to be constructed to serve the project site. Treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project Packet Pg. 734 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page would not result in a new or more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR, which assumed residential development on Site A at a higher density than now proposed. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water or wastewater treatment facilities beyond what has been analyzed in previous CEQA documents, and no additional analysis is required. (c) Stormwater drainage No New Impact. As shown in Figure 9: Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, new on site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of project construction. The proposed project would require new and or upgraded drainage facilities to support the proposed development. Consistent with the City requirements, the project Applicant will be required to install new or upgraded on and off-site (if required) storm drain systems that comply with City of Dublin and Zone 7 standards. The current project would include flow-through planter boxes and a stormwater treatment vault to ensure consistency with regional C.3 stormwater treatment and hydromodification requirements. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to stormwater drainage beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (d) Sufficient water supply No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water for domestic and irrigation purposes, similar to water use projections previously analyzed, as identified in the previous CEQA document. The increased water demand could be accommodated by DSRSD and Zone 7 facilities and long-term supplies. Recycled water would be supplied to the project site for landscape irrigation by DSRSD. The project Applicant would be required to provide any local extensions and connections to the existing recycled water lines. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to water supply beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. (f, g) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effect. The Dublin Transit Center EIR found that there would be adequate capacity within the local landfill to accommodate increases in the amount of solid waste. Information contained in the Dublin Transit Center EIR indicates that additional equipment and personnel would be needed to Packet Pg. 735 7.1.j City of Dublin Ashton Dublin Station CEQA | Page collect the increased amount of solid waste. However, increased fees and user charges would offset any increased capital and/or personnel costs. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to solid waste disposal beyond what has been analyzed in the Dublin Transit Center EIR and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2017. Solid Waste Information Syst Website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Default.htm. Accessed September 7, 2017. City of Dublin. Dublin Transit Center EIR, 2002. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. Sheet Website: http://www.dsrsd.com/home/showdocument?id=811. Accessed September 7, 2017. Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- LN WESTLANE Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- Attachment: 10. Ashton at Dublin Station CEQA Analysis (Ashton at Dublin Station (Transit Center Site A- 8.1 Packet Pg. 754 8.1 Packet Pg. 755 8.1.a \\cc-uem\users\carolines\appdata\roaming\iqm2\minutetraq\dublinca@dublinca.iqm2.com\work\attachments\3091 3091 Packet Pg. 756 8.1.b 97ä /šŒ;’“ .;“-w  Cz©­· /wšz-; [š-·zš“t 97ä /šŒ;’“ .;“-w  {;-š“7 /wšz-; [š-·zš“t Packet Pg. 757 8.1.c 97ä /šŒ;’“ .;“-w {·äŒ; Cz©­· /wšz-; t;7;­·Œ {·äŒ;t C©š“· Ýz;Þr ,Ò· z· ޚҌ7 “š· wÝ; ·wz­ ’Ò-w ·;ã· ;“m©Ý;7u Packet Pg. 758 8.1.c 97ä /šŒ;’“ .;“-w {·äŒ; {;-š“7 /wšz-; t©‰ .;“-w ­·äŒ;t Packet Pg. 759