Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6.1 Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033)
r DUBLIN CALIFORNIA STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 6.1 DATE: .Lily 16, 2024 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager SU ELECT : Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033) Prepared by: Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner and Hazel Wetherford, Deputy City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider a request by GH PacVest, LLC for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. The proposal includes eliminating the Public/Semi-Public land use designation, converting 42.6 acres designated Open Space to Parks/Public-Recreation, establishing development standards for the future development of 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/campus office use, and subdividing the 192-acre site into 11 parcels. Requested approvals include a General Plan and EDSP Amendment, Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential use, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8663, 8666, and 8667, and a Development Agreement. The City Council will also consider an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and: 1) Adopt a Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Adopting General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to Eliminate the 2.5-Acre Public/Semi-Public Land Use Designation and to Convert Approximately 42.6 Acres of Open Space to the Parks/Public Recreation Land Use Designation; 2) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving Amendments to the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Ordinance No. 32- 05 and a Stage 2 Development Plan for 13.7-Acres of Medium -High Density Residential for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project; 3) Adopt a Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project; and 4) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and GH PacVest, LLC Related to the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Page 1 of 14 1 All costs associated with the processing of this application are paid for by the applicant. DESCRIPTION: Background The Dublin Fallon 580 property is located within the Fallon Village area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The property extends north of I-580 to Jordan Ranch, east from Fallon Road to just beyond Croak Road. The project site has a band of low-lying hills along the upper third of the site and slopes down to I-580 where the property is generally flat. No grading has occurred to date and there are no existing structures. The site is generally surrounded by existing and future residential uses and Cottonwood Creek School to the north, commercial to the west and future residential, commercial, and industrial uses to the east as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1 below. Figure 1. Location Map Page 2 of 14 2 Table 1. Surroundin Uses Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Current Use of Property North Planned Development (PD) Medium High Density Residential Public/Semi-Public Parks/Public Recreation Townhomes, Future Neighborhood Square, Cottonwood Creek Park and Cottonwood Creek School South -- -- I-580/City of Pleasanton East PD Medium -Density Residential Industrial Park General Commercial/Campus Office Vacant Land West PD Medium Density Residential Parks/Public Recreation Public/Semi-Public General Commercial Irongate Neighborhood, Sunrise Nature Park, DSRSD Utility, Falllon Gateway Shopping Center The project site has General Plan and EDSP land use designations of Medium -High Density Residential, General Commercial/Campus Office, Park/Public Recreation, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public as shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 2. GH PacVest Existing Land Uses P/PR Future Dublin Boulevard GC/CO On May 18, 2021, the City Council approved a Fallon East Economic Development Zone (EDZ) and Page 3 of 14 3 incentives package for properties east of Fallon Road along the Dublin Boulevard Extension, including the project site. The EDZ encourages investments in targeted industry sectors prioritized by the City Council, including "Med-Tech" and "Bio-Tech" companies and startups. On September 5, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 101-23, approving the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate eliminating the 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public land use designation and converting the Open Space land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation and proposed Development Agreement Deal Terms. Proposed Project The Applicant has requested approval of the following: • An amendment to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use designation and convert 42.6 acres designated as Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation. • An amendment to an existing Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan for the future development of 238 residential units and approximately 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/campus office use. • A Stage 2 Development Plan to establish development regulations for the residential use. • Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667 to subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed residential, commercial/campus office, parks, and open space use. • A Development Agreement. There is no development proposed at this time. A Site Development Review Permit is required for any future development with approval by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Table 2 provides a comparison of existing and proposed land use designations and proposed development densities. Page 4 of 14 4 Table 2. EDSP Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations and Densities Existing Proposed Land Use Designation Gross Acres/ Density Range Gross Acres/ Density Medium -High Density Residential 13.7 14.1-25 du/ac (193-342 units) 13.7 17.4 du/ac (238 units) General Commercial/Campus Office 126.3 .20-.80 FAR (1,101,196 - 4,404,787 SF) 126.25 .20-.80 FAR (1,101,196 - 4,404,787 SF) 2 Parks/Public Recreation (Community Park) 7.2 7.22 Parks/Public Recreation (Nature Community Park) -- 42.59 Open Space 44.9 2.28 Public/Semi-Public3 2.5 30 du/ac (74 units) 0 Total 192.11 192.04 /Acreages from prior General Plan, Specific Plan, and PD1 approvals were based on assumed boundary limits. Proposed Acreages reflected in this application have been updated to match resolved boundary survey data dated January 2017. [Note the discrepancy in total acreages] 2The Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for this proposed project studied a development capacity of 0.6 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (3,299,670 SF). 3The Public/Semi-Public is an overlay designation and does not add to the total acres. It is important to note that the proposed project is not increasing the amount of allowable residential units or commercial square footage from what was previously identified for this area under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Analysis General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments On September 5, 2023, the City Council authorized the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study (Resolution 101-23) to eliminate the 2.5-acre Public/Semi- Public land use designation and convert approximately 42.6 acres of Open Space to Park/Public Recreation on the project site. The following is a discussion of those proposed amendments. Public/Semi-Public Land Use The Fallon Village project originally envisioned a mixed -use commercial area along Central Parkway, known as the Fallon Village Center. This commercial area was to be supported by a mix of commercial, Semi -Public, and residential uses. The General Plan and EDSP assigned a 2.5-acre Semi -Public land use overlay on the Medium -High Density residential site adjacent to Cottonwood Page 5 of 14 5 Creek Park and School. The final location of this site was to be determined at the time of the Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan. On June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted a General Plan and EDSP Amendment to change the land use designation of the 2.5 acres of this property from Semi -Public to Public/Semi-Public. This amendment allowed a broader range of uses, including the potential for affordable housing development by a non-profit entity. However, the plan for the Fallon Village Center has changed over time and no longer includes a commercial component. The Public/Semi-Public use in this area has been achieved through designating the site for the Cottonwood Creek School; therefore, the Applicant proposes to eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use enabling more flexibility regarding the product type proposed on the Medium -High Density Residential site. While this would not increase the overall number of units on the site, it would enable them to spread those units across a larger area, resulting in a lower density product type. Housing Element The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies this site as an opportunity site that can accommodate 74 lower -income affordable units. The "No Net Loss" law prevents local governments from downzoning or eliminating opportunity sites after adopting their Housing Element without finding alternative sites within the City that can accommodate those units. The City is in coordination with the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority to support development at the Dublin Transit Center which includes a site that is already identified as an opportunity site in the Housing Element (Assessor Parcel Number 986-0034-012-00). This site has a surplus of units that can serve as an opportunity site to accommodate these 74 units. A finding in support of locating these units at the Transit Center is included in Attachment 1. Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation The City identified a parkland deficit of approximately 50 acres resulting from new population data from the US Census and Housing Element. The majority of this deficit is in the nature community parkland category. On September 5, 2023, the City Council amended the Dublin Municipal Code (Ordinance 05-23) to shift parkland dedication categories from Community Parkland to Nature Community Parkland to address the City's deficit with the addition of nature parks. The proposed conversion of Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation helps address the City's parkland deficit by providing an additional 42.6+/- acres of Nature Community Parkland. The site will accommodate a future nature park designed for low impact use with hiking and walking trails. As part of the proposed Development Agreement deal terms, Staff has negotiated with the Applicant to dedicate this land to the City to address the City's parkland deficit. The draft City Council resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and EDSP Amendment (EDSPA) is included as Attachment 1. Planned Development Zoning The project site has existing Planned Development Zoning (Ordinance No. 32-05) with a Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan (Ordinance 13-08). Among other things, the Stage 1 Development Plan established the specific residential, commercial, and campus office uses Page 6of14 6 that are permitted by right, conditionally permitted, and prohibited as well as the overall allowed development density and intensity. The proposed project includes an amendment to the existing Stage 1 Development Plan and approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential portion of the project. The proposed amendment to the Stage 1 Development Plan is limited to amending the land use designations to be consistent with the proposed GPA/EDSPA, design standards for retaining walls and street sections, and updating the development assumptions for the General Commercial/Campus Office area. No other changes to the Stage 1 Development Plan are proposed. The Stage 2 Development Plan builds off the existing Stage 1 Development Plan and includes development regulations (i.e. setbacks, height, parking, etc.), architectural and landscape standards, inclusionary housing requirements, and a conceptual site plan for the residential area. An overview of the Stage 2 Development Plan, including the Site Plan (Figure 3), is provided below. The draft Ordinance providing details of the amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan and the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan is included as Attachment 2. Figure 3. Planned Development Stage 2 Site Plan :f a .: a t a��i.i�t •1,t �1. M �.c .�.� ,� t . Residential Development Standards The Stage 1 Development Plan includes development standards for the Medium -High Density Residential areas and allows them to be modified through a Stage 2 Development Plan. New development standards are proposed for the Medium -High Density Residential area supporting multi -family residences of various sizes and styles. The proposed Residential Development Standards are provided in Table 3 below. A complete list of all development standards is included in the proposed Planned Development Ordinance in Attachment 2. Page 7 of 14 7 Table 3. Residential Development Standards Criteria Medium -High Density Product Type Attached Product, Townhome, Condominium Maximum Building Height(4)(12) 40' Maximum Stories 3 Minimum Setbacks (1)(2)(4)(6) Front setback-Porch/Living to right of way (ROW) 5' Rear Setback -garage to back of curb property line (P/L) 3' Rear setback-balcony/deck to back of curb P/L (2nd/3rd story) 0.5' Side setback -Bldg end to ROW or P/L 4' Minimum Building Separation (2)(3)(4) Bldg. to Bldg.-Paseo (Front) 18.5' Bldg. to Bldg. -End 10' Bldg. to Bldg. -Garage (Rear) 30' Minimum Drive Aisle -with Aerial Fire Access 26' Minimum Drive Aisle -No Aerial Fire Access 22' Parking Spaces Required Per Home (11) 2 covered, plus 1 guest parking space for 95% of the units Minimum Usable Private Open Space (SF) (7) 60 S.F. of private outdoor balcony, deck, patio space with 6' minimum dimension Notes: (1) Setbacks measured from property line or as otherwise noted. (2) See following "Typical Plotting Concept" exhibits for graphic depiction of above standards. (3) Items such as, but not limited to air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, retaining walls less than 4' in height, media centers, etc. may encroach 2' into the required setback of one side yard, provided a minimum of a 3' flat and level area is maintained for access around the house. (4) Setbacks are subject to Building Code requirements for access. (5) Maximum height of a front yard courtyard wall shall be 30" maximum (solid wall) or 42" maximum (transparent/fence). (6) Patios / Private outdoor open space may encroach into the Front or Side Setback by up to 3' (7) Retaining walls up to 4' high may be used to create a level usable area. Retaining walls in excess of 4' to create usable area are subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. Retaining walls over 30" in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. (8) Curbside parking may be counted toward required number of guest spaces. Two covered side -by -side spots shall be provided. Tandem spaces may not be utilized to meet the parking requirement. (9) Accessory Structure Setbacks will follow the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.40: Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations. (10) A low wall (30" or less) may encroach into the site line area. No solid structure above 30" shall be allowed; porch columns excluded. Page 8of14 8 (11) Adjustments to the parking requirements shall be subject to Dublin Municipal Code 8.76.05. (12) Refer to Dublin Municipal Code 8.36.110 for height exceptions. Architectural and Landscape Guidelines The architectural and landscape guidelines provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan provide the framework for future Site Development Review Permits. The architectural and landscape guidelines are based on the Design Guidelines and Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan in the Stage 1 Development Plan and aim to promote well designed and attractive development. The proposed architectural guidelines for the residential area focus on the following proposed architectural styles: Traditional Farmhouse, Modern Farmhouse, Contemporary, Contemporary Spanish, and Modern French Country. The residential guidelines seek to develop an interesting mix of plans and elevation styles and to ensure balanced and varied streetscapes. To achieve this, requirements for varied elevations, colors, and massing are included as well as criteria for building form and articulation, roof, window, and door details, garage design and placement, and building materials and finishes. The architectural guidelines are included as Attachment 3. The proposed landscape guidelines are intended to complement and enhance project architecture throughout the development. The emphasis for the Dublin Fallon 580 property is to create a well - designed development through choices and arrangement of materials, colors, and textures. The overall landscape theme provides vibrant, flowering plant material that complements architecture and provides seasonal color while encouraging pedestrian access and connectivity to and from adjacent uses and activities. The landscape design guidelines are included as Attachment 4. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations The Zoning Ordinance requires the Planned Development Zoning address the provisions for inclusionary housing. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan requires the future residential project to comply with the then current Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, as does the Development Agreement. The draft Ordinance adopting the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan is included as Attachment 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Maps The proposed project includes a request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667. Map No. 8663 would subdivide the 192-acre project site into 11 parcels, while Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8666 (Parcel 7) and 8667 (Parcel 8) would create the residential parcels, as shown in Table 4 below: Table 4. Overview of Parcels Parcel Parcel Size (acres) 1 Land Use Proposed use 1 74.1 General Commercial/Campus Office Commercial/Office 2 17.43 General Commercial/Campus Office Commercial/Office 3 20.16 General Commercial/Campus Commercial/Office Page 9of14 9 Parcel Parcel Size (acres)1 Land Use Proposed use Office 4 33.40 Park/Public Recreation Nature Community Park 5 7.22 Park/Public Recreation Community Park 6 9.19 Park/Public Recreation Nature Community Park 7 6.50 Medium -High Density Residential Residential 8 7.22 Medium -High Density Residential Residential 9 12.30 General Commercial/Campus Office Commercial/Office 10 2.28 Open Space Water Quality Facility for Residential Parcel 11 1.95 General Commercial/Campus Office Water Quality Facility for Residential Parcel 1 The acreages from EDSP were based on assumed boundary limits Proposed acreages reflected in this application have been updated to match resolved boundary survey data. Access to the site is currently provided from Croak Road through Central Parkway. Once developed, primary access to the northern portion proposed for residential will be accessed through private streets from Central Parkway and the southern portion proposed for commercial/office will be accessed via the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. As part of the proposed map, a portion of the property would be dedicated for the future extension of Dublin Boulevard located north of Parcel 1 and 3. The dedication includes up to 200+/- feet of right-of- way plus a 10-foot public service easement on both the north and south side of the road, consistent with the proposed roadway improvement plans. The applicant would dedicate right of way and provide public street improvements on Pandora Way and Central Parkway to serve the residential developments. The Applicant is required to provide a 12-foot-wide access road to the Nature Community Park from Parcel 10 and Parcel 11 for City maintenance purposes. The Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and associated details are included as Attachment 6. Development Agreement The Applicant has requested approval of a Development Agreement for the project. The Development Agreement would provide security to the Applicant that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a stated period of time. Additionally, it is a mechanism for the City to obtain commitments from the Applicant that the City might not otherwise be able to obtain. The main points are highlighted below: • Project Grading To accommodate the grading necessary on the property for future development, the Applicant/Property Owner can grade the entirety of the parcel prior to the construction of the Dublin Boulevard Extension. If grading has not commenced prior to the construction of the Dublin Boulevard Extension, a slope easement adjacent to the Dublin Boulevard Page 10 of 14 10 frontage shall be dedicated. • Affordable Housing The Applicant/Property Owner is required to satisfy its affordable housing obligation through compliance with the City's current Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code). • Dublin Boulevard Right -of -Way Dedications The Applicant/Property Owner is required to dedicate land to support the Dublin Boulevard Extension no later than three years from the approval date of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. As part of the Dublin Boulevard Extension project, the City agrees to design and construct a dedicated intersection into the project and in turn the Applicant/Property Owner agrees to reimburse the City for the direct design and paving costs. • Community Facilities District for Service and Maintenance of Public Improvements The Applicant/Property Owner is required to cooperate with the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the purpose of financing the services and maintenance of public facilities/improvements constructed by the Applicant/Property Owner. Public facilities/improvements include all public streets (including storm drain systems, streetlights, and other street appurtenances) within Parcels 7 and 8 (future residential tracts), as shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8663, 8666, and 8667. • Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Credits The Development Agreement restricts the Applicant/Property Owner from using or applying any Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (EDTIF) credits that they have purchased or transferred from any other credit -holder to satisfy the Developer's EDTIF obligations. • Dublin Boulevard Extension Project Mitigation The Applicant/Property Owner is required to work with the City of Dublin to mitigate direct impacts on special status species in the areas south of the future Dublin Boulevard Extension project. • Nature Community Parkland The Applicant/Property Owner is required to dedicate approximately 42.6 acres of Open Space to the City for a cost of $653,400 per acre. Should the City Council approve the conversion of the Open Space land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation, the land will then serve as a Nature Community Park with hiking and walking trails. This action will help address the City's parkland deficit. • Public Improvements The Applicant/Property Owner is required to complete transportation improvements, including improvements to Fallon Road, Croak Road, and the construction of new internal public and private streets. The draft Ordinance approving the Development Agreement is included as Attachment 7 with the Page 11 of 14 11 Development Agreement itself as Attachment 8. Consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed project is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and EDSP as proposed to be amended, and the Dublin Zoning Ordinance because the proposed zoning and land division will allow for the implementation of Parks, Open Space, Medium -High Density Residential, and General Commercial/Campus Office land uses within the project area, which has been designated for such uses. Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District The project site is located within the AIA/Overlay Zoning District and Airport Safety Zone 6 as provided in Chapter 8.35 of the Dublin Municipal Code. This area is designated as an area in which current or future airport -related noise, overflight, safety, and/or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a Planned Development Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are considered to be "Existing Land Uses" pursuant to the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission has no authority over existing land uses unless changes to an existing land use results in an increase of nonconformity with ALUCP policies. The proposed amendment to the General Plan and EDSP includes eliminating the 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public land use designation and converting 42.60 +/- acres of Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation. The Livermore Municipal Airport ALUCP allows Recreational Land Uses in Safety Zone 6 with no limit to intensity (people/acre). Therefore, the change in land use would be consistent with the ALUCP. Local Transportation Analysis The City of Dublin Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines require a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) for all General Plan Amendments to evaluate potential impacts on the circulation network focusing primarily on local access and circulation in proximity to a project site. Per the TIA Guidelines, this analysis is required for conditions of approval and is outside the CEQA review process. Although the requested entitlements do not allow for the inclusion of conditions of approval for the commercial/office portion of the project, an LTA was completed to evaluate ultimate build out. The recommended improvements include a left turn lane at the northbound and westbound Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road intersection and adjusting signal timing and cycle lengths at four intersections as outlined in the LTA. These improvements will be considered with future Site Development Review Permit(s). The LTA is included as Attachment 9 with the Appendices available for review on the City's Development Activity webpage under the Dublin Fallon 580 Project: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Prior CEQA analysis for Page 12 of 14 12 the project area includes: 1) the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (1993), 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002), and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and using the City's Initial Study Checklist, the City assessed whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed project and determined that an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review. The Addendum is included as Attachment 10. The General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation includes a FAR range of 0.20 to 0.80. The previous environmental documents studied the potential impacts of development at an intensity of 0.28 FAR. An updated CEQA analysis was conducted with this project to include analysis of the potential impacts of development at an intensity of 0.6 FAR. The analysis found the 0.6 FAR to be consistent with the anticipated impacts (e.g., traffic and air emissions) in the previous EDSP EIRs. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 11, 2024. Five individuals provided public comment, two individuals in support of the project and three individuals against the project. In addition, the Planning Commission received five written comments (Attachment 11). The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 24-05 unanimously recommending the City Council approve the project (Attachment 12). The Planning Commission also recommended the City Council consider removing the Contemporary architectural style from the Planned Development Residential Guidelines because they felt it was not consistent with the surrounding development. The City and the City's CEQA and Traffic consultants prepared responses to the CEQA and traffic - related comments received from the two primary written comment letters, which is included as Attachment 13. Additionally, the applicant elected to also provide a response to the comment letters, which is included as Attachment 14. PUBLIC OUTREACH: Three City -led Community Meetings were held on March 27, March 28, and April 3, 2024, to provide Dublin residents with information about the proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project. In addition to Staff and the Applicant, nine residents attended the meeting on March 27; 33 residents attended on March 28; and eight residents attended on April 3. Staff provided a presentation that included an overview of the City's development review process and the proposed project. Questions were asked about affordable housing, traffic impacts, rodent control, off -site wetland mitigation, views, use of union labor, and the proposed Nature Community Park. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: Strategy 1: Economic Development, Small Business Support, and Downtown Dublin Strategic Objective 1C: Continue supporting the Fallon -East Economic Development Zone and associated agreements that effectuate the construction of the Dublin Blvd. Extension. Page 13 of 14 13 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS: In accordance with State law, a Public Notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. A Public Notice was also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received some written comment on the project for this City Council hearing (Attachment 15). A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the project was also included on the City's Development Projects webpage. A copy of this Staff Report was posted on the City's website and provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Adopting General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to Eliminate the 2.5-Acre Public/Semi-Public Land Use Designation and to Convert Approximately 42.6 Acres of Open Space to the Parks/Public Recreation Land Use Designation 2) Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving Amendments to the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Ordinance No. 32-05 and a Stage 2 Development Plan for 13.7-Acres of Medium -High Density Residential for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project 3) Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Architectural Design Guidelines 4) Exhibit B to the Ordinance - Landscape Design Guidelines 5) Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Maps for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project 6) Exhibit A to the Resolution - Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 7) Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and GH PacVest, LLC Related to the Dublin Fallon 580 Project 8) Exhibit A to the Ordinance - Development Agreement 9) Local Transportation Analysis 10) CEQA Analysis in Support of the Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR 11) Planning Commission Public Comment Letters Received 12) Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-05 13) City response to CEQA and Traffic Impact Analysis comments 14) GH PacVest response to the CEQA and Traffic Impact Analysis comments 15) City Council Public Comment Letters Page 14 of 14 14 Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. xx-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ELIMINATE THE 2.5-ACRE PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATION AND TO CONVERT APPROXIMATELY 42.6 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE TO THE PARKS/PUBLIC RECREATION LAND USE DESIGNATION (PLPA-2023-00033) (APNS 985-0027-002-00, 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-004-00, 985-0027-005-00) WHEREAS, the Property Owner, GH PacVest LLC, is requesting approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, an amendment to the existing Planned Development (PD) Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan, approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential use, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667, and a Development Agreement for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use designation and convert 42.6 acres designated Open Space to Parks/Public-Recreation, establish development standards for the future development of 238 residential units and approximately 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/campus office use. The 192-acre site would be subdivided into 11 parcels. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Dublin Fallon 580 Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the 192-acre site is located east of Fallon Road, north of 1-580, and along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension; and WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations are Medium High Density, General Commercial/Campus Office, Parks/Public Recreation, Open Space, and Public Semi Public; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2023, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate 1) eliminating the "floating" 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public land use designation and 2) converting approximately 42.6 acres Open Space land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation on the Project site; and WHEREAS, the 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public land use designation is an opportunity site that would accommodate 74 lower -income units subject to the "No Net Loss" provision in the 2023-2031 Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Transit Center Site E-2 (APN 986-0034-012-00), identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, serves as an alternative opportunity site to accommodate the 74 lower -income units; and WHEREAS, the conversion of approximately 42.6 acres to Parks/Public Recreation will accommodate a future Natural Community Park and address the City's parkland deficit; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 1 of 11 15 reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (1993), 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002), and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs" and WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum for the Project (the "Addendum"), incorporated by reference. The Addendum reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the development potential of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required under section 65352.3; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the Dublin Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project, including the Addendum to the EDSP EIRs referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as set forth and recommended approval by the City Council; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated July 16, 2024, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for City Council including the following: 1) the General Plan Amendment/Easten Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, 2) the Planned Development Zoning District with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, 3) the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, 4) a Development Agreement, and 5) a CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including: 1) the proposed Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) the General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; 3) the Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan; 4) Vesting Tentative Tract Maps; and 5) a Development Agreement, on July 16, 2024, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024 the City Council considered the Addendum and all above - referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. The proposed Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 2 of 11 16 General Plan in each of the Elements and will allow for a mixed -use development consisting of both residential and commercial/offices uses. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments noted below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project is in compliance with the General Plan and that each Element within the General Plan is internally consistent. NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds the elimination of the Public/Semi Public land use is in accordance with Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss): A. The reduction is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Element. Consistent with Goal A and Policy 5 of the Housing Element, the City has forecasted for existing and projected housing needs and developed a buffer, by identifying alternative sites within the City, above household projections to meet existing and project needs. The Project would not reduce the amount of low-income units because an alternative site has been identified. Transit Center Site E-2 (APN 986-0034-012-00) is identified as an alternative site for the 74 low-income units and is in close proximity to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and within walking or cycling distance to places of employment, commerce, recreation, and services. The project would be in conformance with the following Housing Element Goal and Policy: Goal A: Expand housing choice and multi -modal transportation opportunities for existing and future Dublin. Policy A.5: Promote affordable housing opportunities adjacent to public transportation and within walking or cycling distance to places of employment, commerce, recreation, and services. B. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level. While the 2023-2031 Housing Element allocated 74 low-income units on the Project site, the City has identified an alternative site to relocate these units to accommodate the Total Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City is in coordination with the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority to support development on surplus property at the Dublin Transit Center. This site, Transit Center Site E-2, has a surplus of units that can serve as an opportunity site to accommodate these 74 units. The site has a General Plan land use designation of Campus Office/High Density Residential and Planned Development Zoning that allows for Multi -Family Residential Use with an average density of 66 units per acre. As identified in the Housing Element Site Table D-9: City of Dublin 6th Cycle Housing Element Candidate Sites, Transit Center Site E- 2 (APN 986-0034-012-00) has a capacity of 493 units, of which 247 units are currently allocated to lower income households and 246 units to above moderate households. As provided in the table below, this alternative site can accommodate the 74 units and is adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and 6558 and is consistent with the City's projected needs for low-income households for the 2023-2031 Planning period. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 3 of 11 17 Alternative Site: Dublin Transit Center Site E-2 Site APN General Plan Acres Net Low -Income Mod -Income Above Mod - Potential Units Units Income units Units 986-0034- 012-00 Campus Office/High7.5 493 321 0 172 Density Residential BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council herby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan: Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to eliminate the 2.5-acre Public/Semi Public land use designation and convert approximately 42.6 acres of Open Space (OS) land use designation to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR) for the project site as shown on the proposed land use map and modifications to the footnote as shown below: PARCEL 3 GC/CO The location of the Public/Semi-Public sites on the -East Ranch (formerly Croak) property of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of the Stage 2 Development Plan approval. The size of the sites will be 2.0 net acres on the East Ranch property. Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to reflect the change in land uses and shall read as follows: Table 2.2 I LAND USE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA CLASSIFICATION RESIDENTIAL ACRES INTENSITY UNITS Acres Dwelling Units/Acre FACTOR Dwelling Persons/ Population Units Dwelling Unit High Density Campus Office/ High Density 52.94 25.1+ 13.92 25.1+ 1,328+ 2.99 715 2.99 3,971+ 2,138 Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 4 of 11 18 Medium -High Density Medium -High Density and Retail/ Office Medium Density Single Family Estate Residential Rural Residential/ Agriculture TOTAL: 153.61 0 418.1 725 30.5 329.8 1,723.87 14.1-25.0 14.1-25.0 6.1-14.0 0.9-6.0 0.01-0.8 0.01 2,165-3,840 0 2,550-5,853 652-4,350 0-24 3 7,413- J 16,113+ 2.99 6,473- 11,482 2.99 0 2.99 7,625- 17,500 2.99 1,949- 13,007 2.99 0-72 2.7 9 • 22,165- 48,179+ COMMERCIAL Acres k Floor Area Ratio jGross) Square Feet (millions) 1 .6-5.0 Square Feet/ Employee 510 Jobs 3,328-9,985 General Commercial 194.85 .20- .60 General Commercial/ Campus Office 168.57 .20- .80 1 .46-5.87 385 3,814- 15,258 Mixed Use 0 .30-1 .00 0 490 0 Mixed Use 2/ Campus Office 22.9 .45 max .45 260 1,731 Neighborhood Commercial 0 .25- .60 0 490 0 Industrial Park 56.4 .35 max .86 590 1,458 Industrial Park/ Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0 Campus Office 123.66 .25-.80 1 .35-4.31 260 5,179- 16,574 Campus Office/ High Density 13 921 .25- .80 .15- .49 260 583-1,866 Medical Campus 42.88 .25- .80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747 Medical Campus/ Commercial 15.85 .25-.80 .17-.41 510 338-812 TOTAL: 625.11 6.5-21.88 18,227- 53,431 PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE Public/Semi-Public Semi -Public Acres 96.96 Floor Area Ratio Gross Square Feet (millions) 1 Acres .50 max .50 max 2.11 .045 Number Square Feet/ Employee 590 590 3,579 77 Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 5 of 11 19 Parks/Public Recreation 250 Regional Parks 1.2 1 Open Space 656.96 School Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs Elementary School 38 .50 max 1 .06 590 1,797 Middle School 27.8 .50 max .61 590 1,034 High School 23.46 .51 590 866 TOTAL: 1,098.97 5.87 7,445 Acres Dwelling Population Square Feet Jobs Units (millions) RAND TOTAL: 3,447.95 6,698- 18,089- 12.37-27.74 2 , 41,578+ 1 Not included in Total as it is already accounted for under the Residential classification. Figure 3-1 (Dublin General Plan Parks and Open Space Map) shall be amended to add the new future park designation as shown on the proposed land use map. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended to remove the land use designation Public/Semi- Public from the GH PacVest (formerly Chen) property as follows: Note: The Natural Community Park shall be located on Parcel 4 and Parcel 6. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 6 of 11 20 Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to reflect the change in land area for Public/Semi Public, Parks, and Open Space and shall read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101-15, 165-15, 151-16, 85-21, 14-22, 133- 22, 136-22 and xx-24) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 252.55 acres .25-.35 FAR 2.746 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office**** 160.37 acres .28-.60 FAR 4.191 MSF Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 0 acres .30-.35 FAR .0 MSF Mixed Use 0 acres .30-1.0 FAR .005 MSF Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** 25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF Campus Office 80.36 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.575 MSF Campus Office/High Density 13.92 acres (4) .35-.75 FAR .265 MSF Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF Subtotal 652.56 acres 11.226 MSF RESIDENTIAL High Density 55.54 acres 35 du/ac 1,943 du Campus Office/High Density 13.92 acres 66 du/ac 715 du Medium High Density 169.31 acres 20 du/ac 3,386 du Medium Density** 505.41 acres (1) 10 du/ac 5,054 du Single Family*** 947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du (3) Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential/Agric. 539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du Mixed Use 0 acres 15du/ac 115 du Subtotal 2,261.38 acres 15,011 du PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 96.96 acres .24 FAR 1.01 MSF Semi -Public 2.09 acres .25 FAR .03 MSF Subtotal 99.05 acres 1.04 MSF SCHOOLS Elementary School 55.8 acres (2) 5 schools Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 7 of 11 21 Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school High School 23.46 acres 1 school Subtotal 100.56 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 56.3 acres 1 park Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks Neighborhood Square 19.2 acres 7 parks Natural Community Park 53.0 acres 2 parks Subtotal 272.7 acres 20 parks Open Space 641.46 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,027.71 acres Table 4.2 (Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to read as follows to reflect the change for Public/Semi Public with no modifications to the footnotes: TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92- 12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151-16, 85-21, 14-22, 133-22 and 136-22 and xx-24) Land Use Designation Developmen t Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Populatio n Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General Commercial/Campus Office* 1.956 MSF 385 5,081 General Commercial 2.746 MSF 510 5,384 Neighborhood Commercial .0 MSF 490 0 Mixed Use** 0 MSF 490 0 Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** .497 MSF 260 1,910 Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077 Campus Office/High Density .265 MSF 260 1,019 Medical Campus .950 260 3,654 Medical Campus/ Commercial .250 510 490 Public/Semi Public 1.01 MSF 590 1,711 Semi -Public 0.03 MSF 590 51 TOTAL: 10.291 MSF 27,577 Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 8 of 11 22 Residential High Density 1,943 du 2.99 5,810 Campus Office/High Density 715 du 2.99 2,138 Medium High Density 3,386 du 2.99 10,124 Medium Density 5,054 du 2.99 15,111 Single Family***(1) 3,789 du 2.99 11,329 Estate Residential 4 du 2.99 12 Mixed Use** 0 2.99 0 Rural Residential/Agric. 5 du 2.99 16,5 TOTAL: 14,896 44,539 Table 4.7 (Fallon Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended to reflect the development potential for the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation and shall read as follows with modifications to the footnote as shown below: Table 4.7 FALLON GATEWAY SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL' Designation Acres Density Development Potential General Commercial 47.85 .25 FAR 521,087 General Commercial/Campus Office 146.05 .28 - .60 FAR 1,781,343- 3,299,670 Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR 950,000 Industrial Park 61.3 .28 FAR 747,664 Total 298.08 --- 4,000,094 — 7,299,764 Natural Community Park 42.6 -- -- Open Space 2.28 -- -- Park/Open Space Total 44.88 1In 2006, the Fallon Village amendment expanded the Fallon Gateway Subarea to the west and north to encompass the entire GH PacVest property (as the Dublin Blvd. alignment had shifted north) except for the areas designated as Community Park and Medium High Density Residential. Additionally, the areas of the GH PacVest, Righetti and Branaugh properties within the Livermore Airport Protection Area (formerly the Industrial subarea) were added to the Fallon Gateway Subarea. See Figure 4.2. Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR .950 msf Table 4.9 (Fallon Village Center Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended to reflect the change for the Medium -High Density designation and shall read as follows with no modifications to the footnote as shown below: Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 9 of 11 23 Table 4.9 FALLON VILLAGE CENTER SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Amended per Resolution No. 92-12, 165-15, 85-21 and xx-24) Designation Acres Density Development Potential Medium Density Residential 38.431 20 du/ac 384 du Medium High Density Residential 13.33 20 du/ac 267 du Residential Subtotal 52.13 -- 651 du Neighborhood Square 2.0 -- 1 park Community Park 13.5 -- 1 park Open Space 3.6 -- -- Park/Open Space Total 1 community park 1 neighborhood square Public/Semi Public 5.7 -- Semi-Public 0 -- Total --- 651 du Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners "#21 GH PacVest (formerly Chen)", "#23 GH PacVest (formerly Chen)", "#29 GH PacVest (formerly EBJ'), and "#30 GH PacVest (formerly Pleasanton Ranch)" shall be amended to read as follows: APPENDIX 4 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units #21 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY CHEN) Medium High Density Residential 6.5 20 130 General Commercial / Campus Office 90.74 0.6 2,371,580 Community Park 7.2 Natural Community Park 33.4 Open Space 2.28 - Total 140.12 2,371,580 130 #22 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY ANDERSON) Medium -High Density Residential 7.2 20 144 General Commercial / Campus Office 34.01 0.6 888,885 Natural Community Park 9.19 Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 10 of 11 24 Total 50.4 888,885 144 Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units #29 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY EBJ Partners) General Commercial / Campus Office 1.1 0.6 28,750 Total 1.1 28,750 #30 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY PLEASANTON RANCH) General Commercial / Campus Office .4 0.6 10,454 Total .4 10,454 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2024 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 11 of 11 25 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. XX — 24 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING STAGE 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 32- 05 AND A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 13.7-ACRES OF MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE DUBLIN FALLON 580 PROJECT PLPA-2023-00033 (APNs 985-0027-002-00, 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-004-00, 985-0027-005-00) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Property Owner, GH PacVest LLC, is requesting approval of a Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Ordinance 32-05) and a Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed project includes up to 238 residential units within 13.7 acres designated Medium High Density Residential, approximately 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/office uses on 126 acres designated General Commercial/Campus Office. Requested approvals include a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment (Ordinance No. 32-05) and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential parcels, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667, and a Development Agreement. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Dublin Fallon 580 Project" or the "Project." B. The project site is approximately 126 acres generally bounded by Jordan Ranch and Francis Ranch to the north, the vacant Righetti property to the east, Fallon Road to the west and Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south. C. This Ordinance adopts an amendment to the Stage 1 Development Plan (Ordinance 32-05) as it applies to the project area (APNs 985-0027-002-00, 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-004- 00, 985-0027-005-00) and a Stage 2 Development Plan for 13.7-acres of Medium High Density Residential within the Dublin Fallon 580 Project and located south of Jordan Ranch and east and west of Croak Road (APNs 985-0027-002-00 and 905-0001-006-03). E. This Ordinance shall supersede Ordinance No. 13-08, adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2008, for an amended Stage 1 Development Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-acre residential portion of the GH PacVest property (formerly Anderson) located east of Croak Road which, among other approvals established the regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (APN 905-0001-006-03). F. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) together with CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain project be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. G. Prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs." Pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum for the Project, which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 1 of 13 26 of the potential environmental impacts of the Project and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. G. Following a properly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 24-05, recommending approval of the Addendum and the Dublin Fallon 580 Project, and approve General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Amendments and a Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and a Development Agreement for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. H. A Staff Report dated July 16, 2024, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, for the City Council. I. The City Council considered the Addendum to the EDSP EIRs, and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony at a properly noticed public hearing prior to taking action on the Project. J. On July 16, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-24 adopting the CEQA Addendum and approving a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. SECTION 2: FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: 1. The proposed Planned Development Zoning District meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that 1) it provides maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property; 2) maintains consistency with, and implements the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 3) protects the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the City; 4) encourages efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as open space areas and topographic features; 5) provides for effective development of public facilities and services for the site; 6) encourages use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the area; and 7) allows for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those expected in conventional developments. 2. Development under the Planned District Development would be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in surrounding areas in that 1) the proposed project is located within the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan area which has a mix of residential, commercial and industrial areas; 2) the project's residential area will be consistent the planned residential projects, including Francis Ranch to the north and medium density residential land use to the east and 3) the future industrial area to the east are envisioned to be developed with similar and compatible uses. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 2 of 13 27 1. The proposed amendment would be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in surrounding areas in that 1) the proposed project is located within the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan area which has a mix of residential, commercial and industrial areas; 2) the project's residential area will be consistent with the planned residential projects, including Francis Ranch to the north and medium density residential land use to the east; and 3) the future industrial area to the east are envisioned to be developed with similar and compatible uses. 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, intensity of the zoning district being proposed in that the proposed density and development standards in the proposed zoning is consistent with the existing Stage 1 Development Plan and existing and proposed land use designations in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 3. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that 1) the proposed amendment addresses the planned design of the Dublin Boulevard extension and provides for a FAR for general commercial/campus offices uses consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and 2) the commercial/office area to the east is envisioned to be developed with similar and compatible uses. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that the proposed land uses and densities are consistent with land use designations in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended. B. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 32-05 (Section 3.2.A.3), the City Council makes the following findings regarding the amendments to the Stage 1 Development Plan as follows: 1. The proposed use and development is consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed development is consistent with Stage 1 and 2 design guidelines. 3. Appropriate transitions are developed between projects where an industrial use is adjacent to a different use. These transitions can be created through careful design of landscaping, consideration of the relationship of the uses to buildings on surrounding sites, building and circulation layout, and setbacks. 4. The size, scale and intensity of development do not conflict with the character of the district and adjacent land uses. 5. Adequate space, light, and air along with visual and acoustical privacy are provided. 6. No excessive noise, illumination, unsightliness, odor, smoke, and other objectionable influences are generated. 7. On and off -site vehicular and pedestrian linkages and circulation are functional and minimize barriers. 8. Streetscapes and parking lots are varied, create visual interest and are pedestrian friendly. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 3 of 13 28 9. The development provides access to public transit and services. 10.Adequate on -site parking, including the ability to participate in shared parking, is provided. 11.Where possible, certain elements should be coordinated and shared, including access drives; internal circulation; perimeter open space and landscape buffers; service, loading, and refuse locations; and drainage, detention, and water quality facilities. SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning District: Approximately 192-acres located south of Jordan Ranch, north of 1-580, east of Fallon Road, and just beyond Croak Road (APNs 985-0027-002-00, 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027- 004-00, 985-0027-005-00 (the "Property") A map of the rezoning area with a related Stage 2 Development Plan for the Medium- High Density Residential is shown below: ,(ReStdentialce Residential 0 Creek Park GH PacVest Property Future Dublin Bouleva f. Pleasanton Vacant Land -Future Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Uses SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE OF STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE NO. 32-05 Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan On December 20, 2005, the City Council approved a Stage 1 Development Plan for the 1,134- acre Fallon Village Project (Ordinance 32-05), pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village Project is amended as shown below. All other provisions of Ordinance 32-05 remain unchanged. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 4 of 13 29 1. Statement of Proposed Uses. The statement of proposed uses shall amend PD-Parks with the addition of Natural Community Park as a permitted use and PD-Public/Semi-Public to remove reference to the location of the Public/Semi-Public on the GH PacVest property within the Fallon Village Center as follows: PD-Park Intent. Community and neighborhood open space and recreational area, both active and passive. Permitted Uses Community Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Square Natural Community Park Recreational and educational facility Trail staging area Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director PD-Public/Semi-Public Intent. Identifies areas where institutional or community facilities uses are anticipated. The exact location of parcels with a Public/Semi-Public designation shall be determined at Stage 2. The Public/Semi-Public parcels on the Francis Ranch (formerly Croak/East Ranch) properties (net 2.0-acres) shall be located within the Fallon Village Center. 2. Development Regulations. Amend Development Regulations for PD-General/Campus Office, and PD-industrial Park projects in Fallon Village to reflect the mix of uses for the GH PacVest property as follows: A. PD-General Commercial/Campus Office, and PD-Industrial Park 1. Development Standards b. Each property owner shall develop their General Commercial/Campus Office parcel with a mix of land uses consistent with the assumptions made in their respective traffic studies as follows: Property Traffic Study Traffic Assumption Summary GH PacVest Dublin Fallon 580 Local Transportation Analysis dated March 2024 (Kittelson) ITE Land Use Unit Amount Weekday ADT Advanced Manufacturing 2888.4 KSF 13,720 Hotel 314 rooms 2,509 Retail 100 KSF 3,701 Office 100 KSF 1,084 Righetti Fallon Village Traffic Study dated August 2005 The Traffic Study assumed development would consist of 70% commercial and 30% office. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 5 of 13 30 This mix of commercial and office uses may be modified as long as the traffic impacts for each parcel remain consistent with the assumptions made in the Traffic Study. 3. Stage 1 Site Plan. Amend the Stage 1 Site Plan as shown in Figure 1, to replace Exhibit A of Ordinance 32-05 in its entirety to accurately reflect the changes in the land use designations for Fallon Village. Figure 1. Stage 1 Site Plan LE(iEND _y IwwtMF Fallon Village .c I PO Amendment Site Psn s* M •COD Gem. C®wU Cam Onto . Davy a�....1 111 i. 1w.. D.*.s.1.Y Malmo l.al.w... .. N Malmowwr.N.(me w. lalm) M.noNee llss.yfd.d Nrg.11. mlfp. ♦ ..alhalmlM ..• • v..i M.Yn.IIA/b0. .v. Spiv Anuna N1 ".4 nA I!1 IA 11.1 1.1 IA 1.11 10.1 ;NA II MAO WI MANY IA.1AfS I,nlw //1 02 I IN, ia11I1.1S0.' 8 • r1 M ^bNm.,+^, rls .r. a..n.v. Mlia.. pn e.. w ...wnsl.un..n.. 1-5tio mACiur& &Imr5 4. Stage 1 Design Guidelines. Amend Exhibit B in Ordinance 32-05 as follows: Retaining Walls (p. 56-58). Details on retaining walls for the GH PacVest Properties shall be as shown on the approved tentative maps for the respective residential developments. 5. Site area, proposed densities. The Table in Section 5 (site area, proposed densities) of Ordinance 32-05 is amended to accurately reflect the changes to the land use designations for Fallon Village (no changes to the footnotes): Land Use Acreage Density Single Family Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 units/acre Medium Density Residential 60.1 acres 6.1-14.0 units/acre Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 6 of 13 31 Medium High Density Residential 23.8 acres 14.1-25.0 units/acre Rural Residential/Agriculture 142.9 acres 1 unit/100 acres Mixed Use 6.4 acres 0.3-1.00 FAR General Commercial/ Campus Office 144.3 acres 0.20-0.80 FAR Industrial Park 61.3 acres 0.35 / 0.40 FAR1 Community Park 18.3 acres -- Neighborhood Park 23.6 acres -- Neighborhood Square 8.0 acres -- Natural Community Park 42.6 acres -- Open Space 168.6 acres -- Elementary School 21.1 acres -- Semi-Public 4.1 acres 0.50 FAR Public/Semi-Public 2.0 acres 0.50 FAR 1The maximum FAR for warehousing uses is 0.40 for the Branaugh Property only. For all other uses and parcels, the maximum FAR is 0.35. 6. Phasing Plan. Amend the Stage 1 Phasing Plan as shown in Figure 2, to replace Exhibit C of Ordinance 32-05 in its entirety to accurately reflect the land use designations for Fallon Village. Figure 2. Stage 1 Phasing Plan FALLON VILLAGE 5taoe I Deveiopmert fiar� Amendmer1 PHASING PLAN Note: Please refer to Ma ter Infrastructure Plan for utllltq Informatlon. 7. Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan. Amend the Stage 1 Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan as shown in Figure 3, to replace Exhibit D of Ordinance 32-05 in its entirety to accurately reflect the changes to land use designations for Fallon Village. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 7 of 13 32 Figure 3. Stage 1 Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan FALLON VILLAGE Stage I PD Amendment MASTER LANDSCAPE AND CIRCULATION PLAN ow_»o, mow- ew 1,.a,> Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 8 of 13 33 8. Master Infrastructure Plan. Amend the Stage 1 Master Infrastructure Plan as shown in Figure 4, to replace Exhibit F in Ordinance 32-05 in its entirety to accurately reflect the changes to land use designation for Fallon Village. Figure 4. Master Infrastructure Plan Fallon Village Stage I PD Amendment MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN S©ce System - Water5.. w,..., Storm Ora.n sy, 5tam Dram System mrunw •• • Vehicular UrLWL�an � Pump Statan/Turnout /ISM - Pro/ect 5. Dow., WATER QUALITY FEATURES: * bade ea Goo Ixi�t�5 Rasn)� CommeruaVwn-re,identul arc. may We bareterMon parOng fJter stn.. my anmal ellenrea (vortex ,I1m) M in eomdwtion • bawn. Major roadways (thane ,lawn W. main lie WI!b lmay also .Clue street 0OhMlr'stops n«ated m partwal4. unp '`twee" ro aM xk Refer tu'StaOwut-Pratnage 5ro mwatcr eoncepe report by engeo. datee rob. 2005. non de e. on sea gwuty teawras. mACKAY&smrs 9. Street Sections. Amend Exhibit G in Ordinance 32-05 as follows: Street sections for GH PacVest Properties shall be as shown on the approved tentative maps for the respective developments. SECTION 5. APPROVAL OF STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 2 Development Plan for the 13.7-acre portion of the GH PacVest area (APNs 985-0027-002-00 and 905-0001-006-03), which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. This Stage 2 Development Plan supersedes and replaces Ordinance 13-08 in its entirety. Stage 2 Development Plan The following is a Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements of a Stage 2 Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for the Dublin Fallon 580 Medium -High Density Residential (PLPA-2023-00033). The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 2 Development Plan provides flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 9 of 13 34 1. Statement of compatibility with the Stage 1 Development Plan. The Dublin Fallon 580 Residential Stage 2 Development Plan is consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village Project area (Ordinance No. 32-05), as amended in Section 4 above. 2. Statement of Uses. Permitted, conditional, accessory and temporary uses are allowed as set forth in the Stage 1 Planned Development for Fallon Village in Ordinance No. 32-05 as amended, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3. Stage 2 Site Plan. The following Stage 2 Site Plan is conceptual. Final site design shall be determined by the Site Development Review Permit. C.A...0 ova Gw . 4roci 1 r'• • cantY A"rp -•••--� -T • 1 • • maite Pre ED L • � T1 Parcel $ ► fEJ 17 20 AcJ L� F-117 EZD r —r 4. Site Area, Proposed Densities. Land Use Size (Gross Units Density (du/ac) Parcel 7 -Tract 8666 Medium -High Density Residential 6.5 128 19.7 Parcel 8- Tract 8667 Medium -High Density Residential 7.2 110 15.3 Total 13.7 238 17.4 5. Development Regulations. Residential Development Standards CRITERIA Medium High Density Product Type Attached Product, Townhome, Condominium Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 10 of 13 35 Maximum Building Height(4)(12) 40' Maximum Stories 3 Minimum Setbacks (1)(2)(4)(6) Front setback- Porch/ Living to ROW 5' Rear Setback- garage to back of curb P/L 3' Rear setback-balcony/deck to back of curb P/L (2nd/3rd story) 0.5' Side setback- Bldg end to ROW or P/L 4' Minimum Building Separation (2)(3)(4) Bldg. to Bldg.- Paseo (Front) 18.5' Bldg. to Bldg.- End 10' Bldg. to Bldg.- Garage (Rear) 30' Minimum Drive Aisle- with Aerial Fire Access 26' Minimum Drive Aisle- No Aerial Fire Access 22' Parking Spaces Required Per Home (11) 2 covered plus 1 guest parking space for95% of the units. Minimum Usable Private Open Space (SF) (7) 60 S.F of private outdoor balcony, deck, patio space with 6' minimum dimension Notes: (1) Setbacks measured from property line or as otherwise noted. (2) See following "Typical Plotting Concept" exhibits for graphic depiction of above standards (3) Items such as, but not limited to air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, retaining walls less than 4' in height, media centers, etc. may encroach 2' into the required setback of one side yard, provided a minimum of a 3' flat and level area is maintained for access around the house. (4) Setbacks are subject to Building Code requirements for access. (5) Maximum height of a front yard courtyard wall shall be 30" maximum (solid wall) or 42" maximum (transparent/fence) (6) Patios / Private outdoor open space may encroach into the Front or Side Setback by up to 3' (7) Retaining walls up to 4' high may be used to create a level usable area. Retaining walls in excess of 4' to create usable area are subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. Retaining walls over 30" in height are subject to safety criteria as determined by the Building Official. (8) Curbside parking may be counted toward required number of guest spaces. 2 covered side -by -side spots shall be provided. Tandem spaces may not be utilized to meet the parking requirement. (9) Accessory Structure Setbacks will follow the City Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.40: Accessory Structures and Uses Regulations (10) A low wall (30" or less) may encroach into the site line area. No solid structure above 30" shall be allowed; porch columns excluded. (11) Adjustments to the parking requirements shall be subject to Dublin Municipal Code 8.76.05. (12) Refer to Dublin Municipal Code Ch 8.36.110 for height exceptions. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 11 of 13 36 Typical Plotting Concepts J 1 LEGEND PRIVATE STREET/ALLEY A PRIVATE STREET/ ALLEY B PRIVATE STREET/ALLEY 0 Lf- -,1Z -Z� J ROTE: FOOTPRINTS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. FINAL FOOTPRM DFSIGN WILL BE PROVIDED IN SDR APPLICATICN A FRONT SETBACK TO ROW OR PAL (UVING OR PORCH) B REAR SETBACK (GARAGE TO BACK CURB-P!L) C REAR SETBACK BALCONY/DECK (2ND/3RD STORY) TO BACK CURB PA_ D SIDE SETBACK BLDG. END TO ROW -PA. E BLDG. TO BLDG .-PASEO F BLDG. TO BLDG. - END G BLDG. TO BLDG. (GARAGE TO GARAGE) H MIN. DRIVE AISLE - WI AERIAL FIRE ACCESS (26) I MIN. DRIVE AISLE - NO AERIAL FIRE ACCESS (22') PIL PROPERTY LINE OR PARCEL LINE TYPICAL PLOTTING CONCEPTS ROW RIGHT OF WAY SETBACKS 1 SEPARATION SW SIDEWALK TOWNHOMES - PRIVATE STREETS GH PACVEST - MH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Not to Scale) DUBLIN, CA 1212112022 6. Architectural Design Guidelines. Please refer to Exhibit A. 7. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Please refer to Exhibit B. 8. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project shall comply with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing unless otherwise defined by the Development Agreement. 9. Public Art. The project shall comply with Public Art Program Contribution (Chapter 8.58) and either make a contribution for or provide public art in accordance with the Dublin Municipal Code. 10. Applicable Requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in this Stage 2 Development Plan and the Stage 1 Development Plan (Ordinance No. 32-05), Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 12 of 13 37 the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to 8.32.060C or its successor. The closest comparable zoning district is as follows: Residential: R-M Multi -Family Residential District General Commercial/Campus Office: C-2 General Commercial District and M-P Industrial Park Zoning District, whichever is least restrictive. SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this , 2024 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk day of Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 13 of 13 38 Attachment 3 Exhibit A to Ordinance - Architectural Design Guidelines DUBLIN FALCON 580 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN, CA FEBRUARY 2024 GH Pacvest, LLC 39 Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 40 1 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Architectural Components 5 Architectural Styles 9 Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 41 Introduction Purpose and Objective The Architectural Guidelines provides the architecture framework for future development within Dublin Fallon 580 with the goal of high -quality designed homes. These guidelines and the graphic representations contained herein are for conceptual purposes only. Guidelines with the term "shall" are required and to be implemented; guidelines with the term "should" are highly recommended. The Architectural Guidelines are organized into two sections: B. Architectural Components, and C. Architectural Styles. These guidelines are to be used with the Development Standards for the project, which dictate height, open space and setback requirements. I.��uJ Kf,. msr —. Central Pkwy Parcel 8 7.2 Ac Parcel 7 6.50 Ac Exhibit 1.1: GH Pacvest Site Context Map N.T.S. Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 42 Architectural Components The public realm architecture is comprised of building and design components that include: Building Facades, Roofs and Roof Decks, Garages, Architectural Details, and Materials and Colors. When appropriately designed, these components can create visually interesting streetscapes and human scale environments. This section of the Architectural Design Guidelines covers architectural components and addresses Universal Design and Accessory Dwelling Units. Building Facades Building Facades constitute all vertical sides of the building: front, sides, and rear that, together with the roof, creates a building's mass and scale. A building's mass and scale directly impact the overall streetscape of a neighborhood. To encourage a pedestrian friendly environment and visually interesting streetscape, the following guidelines are encouraged: • Stagger wall planes in the horizontal and/or vertical plane, where appropriate, to break up the elevation to avoid large building massing. • Provide projections and recesses in building elevations appropriate to the architectural style to create shadow and depth. • Use balconies to create plane breaks in the building elevations. • Buildings shall be designed with "4-sided" architecture to create high -quality homes that are human -scale and enhance the public realm. • Buildings shall be designed to differentiate a defined base, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap as appropriate to the building style. Staggered wall planes Use balconies to create plane breaks in the building elevations. Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 43 Architectural Components Variation in roof forms Roof deck Landscaping in between garage doors Roofs and Roof Decks The building roof provides an important function to the home and to shaping the skyline and a building's overall form. • Variation of roof forms are encouraged to allow for the creation of an interesting roofscape and streetscape. • Roof forms can include, but are not limited to, gable, shed, and hip. Flat roofs may be allowed under the Contemporary and Contemporary Spanish architectural styles, especially when roof decks are part of the building design. • Roof material and color shall complement the architectural style of the home. • Roof decks, if implemented, should be designed as an integral part of the overall building design, consider solar panel requirements, have adequate railings for safety and privacy, and offer adequate private open space for residents. Garages Garages provide a sheltered space for vehicles and, when thoughtfully placed and designed, will de-emphasize the vehicle and can add to the articulation of the overall building form. • Alley -load buildings with garage in the alley are encouraged to promote a walkable pedestrian streetscape. • Garage door recesses into surrounding wall planes, and/or with 2nd floor above cantilevered are encouraged to help de-emphasize the garage door. • Garage door windowlites are allowed and should be appropriate to the architectural style of the home. • To soften alleyways with many garage doors, appropriate landscaping (i.e. small hedges, climbing trellis, etc. ) in between garage doors is encouraged. Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 44 Architectural Components Architectural Details The Architectural Details of a building help complete the design vision and can mean the difference between a welcoming street scene with appeal and one that may be non -inviting and bland. This section includes guidelines for the following Architectural Details: entryways, windows and doors, exterior lighting, gutters and down spouts, building addresses, and mechanical equipment. Entryways • Entryways present the threshold between public and private spaces and are a focal point to the building fagade. The following elements are encouraged to be used to articulate the entryway as a focal point: Porch, Trellis, Portico, and Recessed Entryway. • Where entryways face a paseo, there shall be a walkway, 4' wide minimum, connecting the entryway to the paseo. • Where entryways face a street, there shall be a walkway, 4' wide minimum, connecting the entryway to the sidewalk. Windows and Doors • Window and door design and their trim elements shall be consistent with the overall architectural style of the building. • Window shutters, when used, shall be the same size and shape as the window opening they appear to shutter. • Window frames shall be appropriately colored to match or complement the house or trim colors for each color scheme. Exterior Lighting • Exterior lighting shall adhere to standards and regulations in Dublin Municipal Code 7.32.270: Building Security, Section (D) Lighting. • All building -mounted and site lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded and utilize colors and finishes to complement the building's architectural style. Gutters and Downspouts • Gutters and downspouts shall be integrated into the overall building design in regards to location and color. A walkway connecting the entryway to the paseo Window designs and trim elements Window shutters proportional to the window opening Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 45 Architectural Components Example of well screened Mechnical Equipment on ground level Buildings facing across a street use different color schemes for street scene variation Building Addresses • Building address numbers should be of a clear typeface appropriate to building style. • Lighting and visibility of building addresses should adhere to the regulations in Dublin Municipal Code 7.32.120: Address Illumination. Mechanical Equipment • Mechanical equipment located on the ground shall be screened from view from the public to maintain a pedestrian friendly street scene. Screening can be landscape and/or a fencing screen. • Mechanical equipment located in cabinets and/or on the wall shall be appropriately screened with doors that are integrated into the overall building design and/or landscaping that will not obscure access to the equipment per utility company standards. • Any rooftop equipment shall be integrated into the overall building design and screened from public views. Materials and Colors The Materials and Colors of a building have a direct impact on the streetscape and overall neighborhood. The following guidelines are to be referenced with the materials allowed for each architectural style. • Materials and colors shall be of high -quality and durable, weather well, and reflect the home's architectural style. • Material and color blocking shall not terminate at outside corners and shall wrap to appropriate transition points of the building facade. • Materials and colors at the base of buildings should continue to where the building meets grade so the building is well seated into the street, avoiding a "floating" look. Universal Design The proposed buildings will adhere to the Universal Design Guidelines as outlined in Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.90: Universal Design. Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory Dwelling Units proposed in Dublin Fallon 580 will adhere to the standards and regulations as outlined in Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.80: Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations. Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 46 Architectural Styles The architectural styles of Dublin Fallon 580 draw from the project site's setting of rolling hills and its relationship to the surrounding area and existing residential neighborhoods. The following five architectural styles identified for Dublin Fallon 580 are a mixture of traditional and contemporary styles offering variation. • Traditional Farmhouse • Modern Farmhouse • Contemporary • Contemporary Spanish • Modern French Country Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 47 Architectural Styles Traditional Farmhouse MINIMUM CHARACTERISTICS SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENTS • Gable Roof Forms Roof Form • • 3:12 to 8:12 Pitch 12" to 18" deep Eaves • Shed Accent Roofs • 6" to 12" deep Rakes • Dimensional Composition Shingle Roof Materials Roofing and/or Standing Seam Metal Roofing • Board and Batten Siding Exterior Finish • Lap Siding with 6 to 8 inch Exposure • Brick or Stone Veneer • Stucco Finish • Single Hung and Casement Windows Windows and Doors • • Accent Painted Entry Doors Panelized or Carriage House Sectional • Fixed Accent Windows Garage Doors • Wood Brackets or Kickers Trims and • Wood trim, Fiber Cement Trim, and/or • Wood Porch Posts Accents High Density Foam with precast finish or smooth stucco finish • • Wood Railings Decorative false vents in gable ends • Trim same color as adjacent body color Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 48 Architectural Styles Modern Farmhouse MINIMUM CHARACTERISTICS SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENTS • Gable Roof Forms Roof Form • • 3:12 to 6:12 Pitch 6" to 12" deep Eaves • Shed Accent Roofs • 0" to 6" deep Rakes • Dimensional Composition Shingle Roof Materials Roofing and/or Standing Seam Metal Roofing • Lap Siding Exterior Finish • Stucco Finish • Brick and/or Stone Veneer • Board and Batten Accent Siding • Single Hung and Casement Windows Windows and Doors • • Accent Painted Entry Doors Panelized or carriage house sectional • Fixed Accent Windows Garage Doors • Wood brackets or Kickers Trims and • Wood trim, Fiber Cement Trim, and/or Wood Porch Posts Accents High Density Foam with precast finish or smooth stucco finish Metal Railings Metal Awnings over windows or doors • Trim same color as adjacent body color Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 49 Architectural Styles Contemporary MINIMUM CHARACTERISTICS SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENTS Roof Form • • • • • One primary roof form Secondary roof forms, and/or dormers smaller than primaryroof form Gable, Shed or Flat roofs 0"-18" Eaves 0"-18" Rakes Roof Materials • • Dimensional composition roof shingles Flat Concrete Roof Tiles • Standing Seam metal roof Exterior Finish • • • • Horizontal Lap Siding with 4"-8" exposure Horizontal or Vertical T&G Siding Metal siding Stucco, smooth or fine dash finish • Brick or Stone Veneer Windows and Doors • • • • • Single Hung Windows Casement Windows Slider Windows Square or Rectangular Windows Flat garage doors (no panels) or rectangular recessed panels (no bevels encouraged) • • Flush entry doors with no panels. Any glazing to be square or rectangular Awning Accent Windows Trims and Accents • Recessed windows or enhanced window trims • Rectangular, Square or Round columns and pilasters — minimum of 4" width in any direction tt, Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 50 Architectural Styles Contemporary Spanish MINIMUM CHARACTERISTICS SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENTS Roof Form • • Gable Roof and/or Hipped Roof 4:12 - 6:12 Roof Pitches • Limited Flat Roof Areas • Clay or Concrete Roof Tiles, one of the Roof Materials following shapes • Barrel Roof Tile • Standing Seam metal Accent Roof • Flat Concrete Areas • S-shaped Concrete • Horizontal Lap Siding Exterior Finish • Predominately Stucco • • Tongue and Groove Siding Stone or Brick Veneer • Tile Accents • Single Hung Windows • Casement Windows • Slider Windows Windows and • Contemporary Paneled front doors (no • Fixed Accent Windows Doors beveled panels) • Solid, Flat Front Doors • Flat garage doors (no panels) or rectangular recessed panels (no bevels encouraged) • Metal Railings Trims and • Recessed windows or enhanced • Wood Railings Accents window trims • Decorative Metal Details • False Tiles Vents '4001 Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 51 Architectural Styles Modern French Country MINIMUM CHARACTERISTICS SUGGESTED ENHANCEMENTS Form •Roof Gable Roof • Hipped Roof accents, 4:12 - 7:12 roof pitches • 4:12 - 7:12 Roof Pitches • Limited Flat Roof Areas Roof Materials • Dimensional Roof Shingles and/or Flat Concrete Tile • Standing Seam Metal Accent Roof Areas • Horizontal Lap Siding Exterior Finish • Predominately Stucco • Tongue and Groove Siding • Stone or Brick Veneer • Single Hung Windows • Casement Windows • Slider Windows Windows and • Contemporary Paneled Front Doors (no • Fixed Accent Windows Doors beveled panels) • Solid, flat front doors • Flat garage doors (no panels) or rectangular recessed panels (no bevels encouraged) • Metal Railings Trims and • Recessed windows or enhanced • Wood Railings Accents window trims • Decorative Metal Details • False tile vents Dublin Fallon 580 Design Guidelines 52 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 53 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES CONCEPT The Dublin Fallon 580 property comprises of 13.66 acres designated for high -density multi -family residential use (Parcels 7 and 8, depicted below with pedestrian circulation and bicycle connections). The selection and arrangement of materials, colors, and textures will create a unified community aesthetic. The overarching landscape theme will feature vibrant, blossoming plant life, complemented by evergreen planting that harmonizes with the architecture and encourages pedestrian access and connectivity both within the community and to neighboring areas. Each entrance to the neighborhoods will have its own enhanced character while still fitting in with the surrounding community. The proposed landscaping will contribute to a strong visual identity. Within the residential community, the internal streets and sidewalks will be adorned with various street trees, strategically positioned to maximize solar exposure. Additionally, low - growing flowering groundcover will enhance pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks. Proposed Community Park ipk • 1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES • Create an aesthetically pleasing site by carefully selecting and arranging materials, colors, and textures that harmonize with the natural open space. • Offer outdoor amenities to residents, including shaded paseos and outdoor seating areas. • Promote a unified neighborhood identity through distinctive entry branding and consistent site elements. • Establish a cohesive and inviting atmosphere at night by implementing street lighting throughout the neighborhood, ensuring safety, aesthetics, and a sense of continuity. itv rJordan Ranch — 3- _, - rl Iconrcai wr.- t,.-_---- 4 Parcel 7� ice_• ?I - r' ' I L l _• r` L; �t,r r ia0 6.50 Ac �� — — --->y i Bicycle/Pedestrian' Connection • Nelgnoomooa Square Open Space 41. Bicycle/Pedestrian Connection _int law se _aft so Open Space Proposed Neighborhood Paris -C -ME •--f3 Pedestrian Routes on Primary Streets with Sidewalks Pedestrian Routes Through Paseos Pedestrian circulation 2 54 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES STREETS AND ENTRIES Neighborhood Streets The neighborhood streets will be carefully designed to create a well -organized layout that guides both vehicles and pedestrians throughout the community. Landscaping will be incorporated along the streets to create an attractive street scene. Textured paving materials like stamped asphalt, stamped concrete, or pavers can be used in crosswalks to visually enhance the pedestrian pathways. The selection of street trees will be coordinated with utilities and street lights to create a continuous canopy of trees along the streets. Additional trees will be strategically placed in irregular patterns, and screening trees will be positioned near building ends to soften the architectural features. A tiered approach will be employed, incorporating low -growing groundcover, intermediate shrubs, and background shrubs to provide a diverse landscape with seasonal colors and textural contrast. Please refer to the plant palette for suggested species and required sizes. 0 Croak Road Hillside Condition Neighborhood Entries To emphasize the arrival and unique character of the community, incorporate distinctive plantings or monuments at entry points. Ensure that the design of these features aligns with the architectural style of the surroundings. Croak Road The sloped edge along Croak Road should continue the character of the valley and have a natural and California landscape. It should include grasses, native plants, trees and low-lying groundcovers. The east side of Croak Road is a gentle hillside, shown below. Open Space Interface Roads Streets along the open space should have a rural and lightly landscaped edge that allows for views of the valley. The opposite site should provide street trees and a variety of planting. Scale: N.T.S. Entry monument with thematic landscaping Street trees in parkway strips or front yard planting areas LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES COMMON LANDSCAPE AREAS Paseos Paseos are designated pedestrian walkways within the community, offering a pleasant and convenient means of getting around without interference from vehicles. It is essential to adorn the paseos with carefully selected plantings that enhance the visual appeal and provide an enjoyable walking experience. Additionally, incorporating seating areas, fountains, or sculptures along the paseos can further enhance the overall ambiance. The paseos should seamlessly integrate into the overall design of the residential development. Alleyways By strategically considering their placement and design, garages can be integrated into the landscape in a way that minimizes their visual prominence and enhances the overall landscape experience. Introducing suitable plantings such as small hedges or climbing trellises between garage doors can soften the appearance of alleyways. Landscaping between garage doors To safeguard the landscaping from interference by vehicles or pedestrians, raised planting surfaces, depressed walkways, or curbs should be employed. Concrete mow -strips should separate turf and shrub areas, creating a connected network of pathways, and incorporating focal elements along sight lines. Neighborhood paseos 4 56 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES POCKET PARKS Pocket parks are small green spaces nestled into the fabric of an urban neighborhood that provide public space for social engagement, relaxation, and exercise. Pocket parks typically feature seating opportunities, aesthetic landscaping, and other amenities that improve the physical and psychological well-being of local residents. Pocket parks often fill irregularly shaped or underutilized lots and can serve as focal points of activity and interest for the surrounding population. Pocket parks also offer convenient points of access for emergency vehicles by connecting the inner community zone to the external arterial roads. This is achieved through the strategic placement of durable and weather - resistant hardscape materials that can support heavy vehicles, for example, a full-sized fire engine. Hardscape treatments such as decorative pavers provide a unique plaza experience for visitors while ensuring safety and efficiency for emergency responders. Pocket parks LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Parcel 7 There is an opportunity for a pocket park within Parcel 7. This common green space would directly serve the adjacent residential buildings and provide a key connection to to the existing developement and park. In addition to an open area for social gathering, the pocket park would feature a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Neighborhood Square park to the north, a green landscaped perimeter, and outdoor site elements such as benches and lighting. Parcel 8 There is an opportunity for a pocket park in the northern area within Parcel 8. This common green space would directly serve the adjacent 5-plex residential building and provide a key connection to Central Parkway. In addition to an open area for social gathering, the pocket park would feature a pedestrian and bicycle connection to East Ranch, a green landscaped perimeter, and outdoor site elements such as benches and lighting. There is an additional pocket park opportunity along the western edge of Parcel 8 with frontage to Croak Road. This area may potentially offer additional common space and seating opportunities to improve quality of life and community cohesion. This location could provide direct pedestrian and bicycle access to the sidewalk and supplement neighborhood connections to the surrounding circulation network. r El In f Pocket Park with Ped. / Bike Access f. In Parcel 7 6.50 Ac Parcel 7 pocket park opportunity area 1 I Pocket Park / Pocket Park with Ped. / Bike Access Parcel 8 L7.20 Ac (�—� Parcel 8 pocket park opportunity areas 6 58 Dublin Fa580 DESIGNN GUIDELINES OUTDOOR SITE ELEMENTS Street Lighting All street lighting in the residential neighborhood will conform to approved City standards. Street lighting is used for both decoration as well as marking special pathways and landmarks. Model: The Lumec L60 LED Hexagonal Lantern series on 18.5' tall post is recommended, to match the current City's standard. Mailbox Clustered mailbox will be used. The mailbox location/ model shall be reviewed and approved by USPS. Signage Signage shall conform to City ordinances. Perimeter Fence For security reasons, it may be necessary to install a fence around the property. To enhance the visual appeal, it is recommended to incorporate landscaping elements such as climbing vines and tall hedges adjacent to the fence. Gates should be included in walls or fences as needed to ensure emergency or maintenance access. 0 Street Lighting Scale: N.T.S. Benches and Trash Receptacles Benches and trash receptacles should be placed strategically to ensure visitor convenience. The model of bench and trash receptacle should be consistent throughout the neighborhood. Bike Parking Bicycle racks play a crucial role in promoting sustainable and active transportation. Provide bicycle parking, where feasible, to support intermodal travel for residents. ii IIIIIIIII! a!,mlli M11 yyi�%y%%l�s � iu Th 11111 III III ppg,wpul giiwnnnur.w3uuunuunonm IIIII 41 I! lilt it i,' I Perimeter fence Benches and trash receptacles Bicycle parking LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES FENCES AND WALLS The landscape system encompasses community theme walls, fencing, and front yard planting. Each element of the landscape is carefully designed to reflect the unique character and exceptional quality of the community. Typically, fences will be positioned away from the view triangles at intersections to ensure visibility and safety. Where necessary, breaks in the fence, removable sections, or gates will be incorporated to allow for maintenance access to adjacent utilities, such as water quality basins. Good Neighbor Fence - The good neighbor fence should be located between lots. The design is a vertical board wood fence, 6'tall with caps and fascia boards. Wood 4x4 posts are located at a minimum of 8'on center. 4'kd" Past 2'k8' Cap 8'-0' Lattice Top Fence - This fence should be used parallel to the front of the home. Where side yards abut a residential street, the lattice fence will also be used. Where the fence is adjacent to the street, a 3 foot landscape buffer, at a minimum, is provided between the walkway and fence. Open Space Interface Fence - This fence should be utilized along the wildfire buffer lots where they abut open space. The fence should not exceed 4 feet in height. Concrete Split Rail Fence - This fence is utilized in the landscape along the southern sidewalks of street B serving as a thematic element to keep pedestrians out of water quality basins. CMU Block Wall - Use split face CMU block wall where needed to retain throughout the community. Tree plantings for screening on the retaining wall slope are discussed in the following section. 1 'k8" With 1" amrtap Each Side • 2'k1 x' ICid< Board 2'k4" Bottom Rail 0 Good Neighbor Fence Scale: N.T.S. 1 8'-0" MAX 6'-0" e H HH 0 c 2"x6" Cap Vertical Wood Lattice 4"x4" Post 1"x8" With 1" Overlap Each Side 2"x4" Bottom Rail 1"x6" Kick Board 0 Lattice Top Fence . ,:..�c■■� .■.■■■■Mraar■MM oral :.Its I i■d.■.■.11rurrrrr h■ Scale: N.T.S. 8 60 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES 1'k4" Top Rail n6' Cap r 4"x4" Post 1 O 0 ra 1"x4" tv d Rat 1'k4" Sottom Rail 1 I Welded Wire Mesh Tx4' Grids Open Space Interface Fence Scale: N.T.S. Concrete Split Rail Fence Scale: N.T.S. Thin CMU Cap CMU Block MFR. Castlelite Finish: Split -Face Color Standard #419 OCMU Retaining Wall Scale: N.T.S. 61 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING DESIGN The landscaping should elevate the overall quality of the neighborhood by framing and softening the look of structures, delineating site functions, and providing screening and buffering from adjacent uses. Whenever feasible, landscaped areas should follow a three -tiered planting approach: 1) trees, taking into account the available planting space; 2) shrubs; and 3) grasses, ground covers, and vines. Utilize tree patterns and structure to emphasize entries, create edges, provide privacy, and itnegrate open space. This ensures a visually appealing landscape design. This is not an exhaustive list and development plans may include others that appropriate for the project and microclimate. PLANTING LIST - TREES Street Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Plant material should be selected appropriately for location and microclimate. Provide a combination of evergreen, deciduous and flowering trees. A variety of flowering, variegated, and evergreen shrubs should be mixed to maintain visual interest and seasonal diversity. Emphasis will be placed on the use of low-water, climate - adapted, and deer -resistant plant materials. Plants should be selected and spaced appropriately for their mature size to ensure healthy growth and to reduce trimming and shearing. Micro -climates, soil conditions, and irrigation water quality must be considered in plant selection. Plants with similar watering needs should be planted together to prevent under or over watering. HEIGHT SPREAD Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' Red Maple 60' 15' Celtissinensis Chinese Hackberry 40' 40' Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain Tree 30' 35' Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 25' 25' Pistacia chinensis 'Keith Davey' Chinese Pistache 40' 40' Platanus x acerifolia'Yarwood' London Plane Tree 60' 35' Prunus x yedoensis 'Akebono' Yoshino Cherry 25' 25' Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 50' 50' Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' Greenspire Little Leaf Linden 40' 30' Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm 60' 50' Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova 50' 50' Quercus agrifolia Tilia cordata 'G reenspire' Ulmus parvifolia Zelkova serrata 10 r 62 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES Accent Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Acer buergerianum Triden Maple 20'O.C. Acer palmatum Japanese maple 20'O.C. Arbutus 'Marina' Strawberry Tree 30' O.C. Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 20'O.C. Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa 25' O.C. Citrus spp. Citrus 15' O.C. Cotinus coggygria Smoke Tree 25' O.C. Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree 25' O.C. Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 25'O.C. Laurus nobilis Sweet Bay 25' O.C. Prunus sargentii Sargent Cherry 25'O.C. Enhanced Open Space Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Aesculus californica California Buckeye 25'O.C. Arctostaphylos 'Dr Hurd' Manzanita 15'O.C. Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 20'O.C. Geijera parviflora Australian Willow 20'O.C. Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust 30'O.C. Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 40'O.C. Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 50'O.C. Quercus robur fastigiata English Oak 15'O.C. Quercus suber Cork Oak 50' O.C. Schinus molle California Pepper Tree 50'O.C. Umbellularia californica California Bay 50'O.C. Chitalpa tashkentensis Quercus suber Geijera parviflora LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Residential Screening Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Carpinus betulus European Hornbeam 20'O.C. Garrya elliptica Silk Tassel Tree 15'O.C. Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem' Southern Magnolia 20'O.C. Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas Tree 25' O.C. Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum 20' O.C. Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry 20'O.C. Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 20'O.C. Rhamnus alaternus Italian Buckthorn 15'O.C. Rhus lancea African Sumac 25'O.C. Retaining Wall Trees The sloped planting area at the retaining wall at Parcel 7 should feature two rows of trees to provide screening. These should be triangulated with a spacing of 35 feet on center between trees and rows. The first row of trees should be offset 15 feet from the retaining wall. At the north end of the wall, only one row of trees should be planted given the limited space. Carpinus betulus Nyssa sylvatica BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOX SIZE HEIGHT SPACING WALL OFFSET Ulmus parvifolia'Emer II' Allee Lacebark Elm 36 inches 40 feet 35 feet 15 feet Ulmus parvifolia'Emer II' 12 64 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - SHRUBS Accent Shrubs BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Agave spp. Agave 18" O.C. Aloe striata Carol Aloe 18"O.C. Anigozanthos spp. Kangaroo Paw 36"O.C. Bulbine frutescens Stalked Bulbine 36"O.C. Coreopsis spp. Coreopsis 24" O.C. Dasylirion wheeleri Spoon Yucca 48" O.C. Dianella tasmanica Tasman Flax Lily 30"O.C. Hemerocallis Day Lily 36"O.C. Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca 30" O.C. Heuchera spp. Coral Bells 24"O.C. Iris douglasiona Pacific Coast Iris 18"O.C. Kniphofia uvaria Red Hot Poker 30"O.C. Lantana spp. Lantana 48" O.C. Liriope muscari Lily Turf 24" O.C. Penstemon spp. Penstemon 36" O.C. Teucrium chamaedrys Germander 24" O.C. Verbena Verbena 24" O.C. Bulbine frutescens Lantana spp. Penstemon Teucrium chamadrys 13 65 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Tall Shrubs BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Abelia spp. Abelia 36"O.C. Arbutus unedo 'Compacta' Compact Strawberry Bush 48" O.C. Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita 96"O.C. Buddleia davidii Butterfly Bush 60"O.C. Carpenteria californica Bush Anemore 60"O.C. Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush 60"O.C. Euonymus japonica Spindle Tree 60" O.C. Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava 120"O.C. Lavatera maritima Tree Mallow 84"O.C. Ligustrum J. 'Texanum' Waxleaf Privet 72"O.C. Loropetalum chinensis Chinese Fringe Flower 72"O.C. Myrica californica Wax Myrtle 15' O.C. Myrsine africana African Boxwood 60"O.C. Prostanthera ovalifolia Mint Bush 84" O.C. Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry 72" O.C. Ribes spp. Currant 72" O.C. Arctostaphylos spp. Anigozanthos Camellia japonica Lavatera maritima 14 66 i Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES Medium Shrubs BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Asparagus densiflorus 'Myers' Foxtail Fern 36"O.C. Callistemon'Little John' Dwarf Cottlebrush 36" O.C. Cistus spp. Rock Rose 48" O.C. Coleonema spp. Breath of Heaven 48" O.C. Dietes spp. Fortnight Lily 36"O.C. Epilobium canum California Fuchsia 30"O.C. Escallonia Jubilee' Escallonia 60" O.C. Euphorbia rigida Silver Spurge 36" O.C. Grevillea 'Noelii' Grevillea 36" O.C. Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Dwarf Myrtle 30"O.C. Nandina spp. Nandina/Heavenly Bamboo 30"O.C. Nepeta x faassenii Catmint 30" O.C. Nephrolepis cordifolia 'California' California Fern 48"O.C. Olea europaea 'Montra' Little Olive 72"O.C. Perovskia atriplicifolia Russian Sage 36"O.C. Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax 48" O.C. Pittosporum tobira Dwarf Mock Orange 60" O.C. Rhaphiolepsis indica Indian Hawthorn 72"O.C. Salvia spp. Sage 48" O.C. Teucrium fructicans Bush Germander 48"O.C. Sedum spp. Stonecrop 24" O.C. Viburnum tinus compacta Viburnum 48" O.C. Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Coast Rosemary 36"O.C. Dietes spp. Teucrium fruticans Olea europaea 'Montra' Salvia spp. 15 67 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - GRASSES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama Grass 30"O.C. Calamagrostis 'Karl Foerster' Feather Reed Grasses 36"O.C. Carex spp. Sedge 24" O.C. Chondropetalum tectorum Small Cape Rush 36"O.C. Festuca californica California Fescue 24"O.C. Juncus patens California Gray Rush 24"O.C. Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye 48" O.C. Lomandra longifolia Dwarf Mat Rush 36"O.C. Muhlenbergia rigens Meadow Muhly 36"O.C. Pennisetum alopecuroides Dwarf Fountain Grass 30"O.C. Pennisetum setaceum 'Rubrum' Red Fountain Grass 30"O.C. PLANTING LIST - VINES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPREAD Bougainvillea spp. Bougainvillea 20' Ficus pumila Creeping Fig 30' Hardenbergia violacea Purple Vine Lilac 10' Jasminum spp. Jasmine 20' Lonicera japonica Honeysuckle 20' Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper 30' Solanum laxum Potato Vine 25' Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria 15' Bougainvillea spp. Hardenbergia violacea Ficus pumila Festuca californica Juncus patens Lomandra longifolia Muhlenbergia rigens 16 68 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - GROUNDCOVERS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Acacia redolens Acacia 10'O.C. Achillea millefolium Yarrow 30" O.C. Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush 72" O.C. Ceanothus griseus California Lilac 60"O.C. Coprosoma kirkii 'Verde Vista' Prostate Mirror Plant 60"O.C. Dymondia margaretae Silver Carpet 36"O.C. Erigeron glaucus'Sea Breeze' Seaside Daisy 36" O.C. Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy 36"O.C. Gazania spp. Gazania 24" O.C. Geranium spp. Hardy Scented Geramium 24"O.C. Juniperus spp. Juniper 60"O.C. Limonium perezii Sea Lavender 24"O.C. Mimulus x 'Jelly Bean Orange' Sticky Monkey Flower 48"O.C. Myoporum parvifolium 'Pink' Myoporum'Pink' 72" O.C. Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geramium 48" O.C. Oenothera speciosa 'Childsii' Mexican Evening Primrose 36"O.C. Osteospermum fruticosum African Daisy 60"O.C. Rosa 'Carpet Rose' Carpet Rose 48"O.C. Rosmarinus officinalis 'H untington Carpet' Rosemary 60" O.C. Senecio serpens Blue Chalk Sticks 24"O.C. Stachys byzantina Lamb's Ears 24"O.C. Stachys byzantina Rosmarinus officinalus Myoporum parvifolium'Pink' Senecio serpens LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS Plants play an important role in the function of landscape -based stormwater treatment measures. All species listed are included in the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Guidebook and are suitable for stormwater treatment measures. Trees in Stormwater Treatment Areas BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Aesculus californica Buckeye 25'O.C. Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree 25' O.C. Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum 25' O.C. Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 50'O.C. Platanus racemosa Calfornia Sycamore 40'O.C. Ulmus propinqua 'JFS-Bieberich' Emerald Sunshine Elm 25'O.C. Shrubs & Grasses in Stormwater Treatment Areas BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow 30" O.C. Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks' Coyote Brush Prostrate 72"O.C. Carex pansa California Meadow Sedge 18"O.C. Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush 36"O.C. Eriogonum fasciculatum Flattop Buckwheat 36"O.C. Juncus patens Blue Rush 24"O.C. Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye 48"O.C. Limonium californicum Marsh Rosemary 24"O.C. Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass 36" O.C. Nasella pulchra Purple Needlegrass 30"O.C. Salvia clevelandii Cleveland Sage 48"O.C. Epilobium densiflorum Dense Spike Primrose 30"O.C. Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks' Juncus patens Epilobium densiflorum 18 r 70 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Attachment 4 Exhibit B to Ordinance - Landscape Design Guidelines CONCEPT The Dublin Fallon 580 property comprises of 13.66 acres designated for high -density multi -family residential use (Parcels 7 and 8, depicted below with pedestrian circulation and bicycle connections). The selection and arrangement of materials, colors, and textures will create a unified community aesthetic. The overarching landscape theme will feature vibrant, blossoming plant life, complemented by evergreen planting that harmonizes with the architecture and encourages pedestrian access and connectivity both within the community and to neighboring areas. Each entrance to the neighborhoods will have its own enhanced character while still fitting in with the surrounding community. The proposed landscaping will contribute to a strong visual identity. Within the residential community, the internal streets and sidewalks will be adorned with various street trees, strategically positioned to maximize solar exposure. Additionally, low - growing flowering groundcover will enhance pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks. DESIGN PRINCIPLES • Create an aesthetically pleasing site by carefully selecting and arranging materials, colors, and textures that harmonize with the natural open space. • Offer outdoor amenities to residents, including shaded paseos and outdoor seating areas. • Promote a unified neighborhood identity through distinctive entry branding and consistent site elements. • Establish a cohesive and inviting atmosphere at night by implementing street lighting throughout the neighborhood, ensuring safety, aesthetics, and a sense of continuity. Proposed Neighborhood Park Bicycle/Pedestrian Connection r— - • I • I Central Pkwy _I 1 nr, Tailiarbyelidlat -RE .... Proposed Community Park Bicycle/Pedestrian 10 Connection a,,t Neignoomooa :1ti pot Square i ---' //` J 1 711711 Parcel8 L7.20Aci —� —11 1 1 ■ �-� Parcel74" -7 6 50 Ac- " r r 1 • 4Z r• r.-r• r.—rra-r•�-a r•-trrrti r. s � r. • i / Open Space MN s r• t MIL -ufis Open Space` Pedestrian Routes on Primary Streets with Sidewalks Pedestrian Routes Through Paseos Pedestrian circulation 2 71 i Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES STREETS AND ENTRIES Neighborhood Streets The neighborhood streets will be carefully designed to create a well -organized layout that guides both vehicles and pedestrians throughout the community. Landscaping will be incorporated along the streets to create an attractive street scene. Textured paving materials like stamped asphalt, stamped concrete, or pavers can be used in crosswalks to visually enhance the pedestrian pathways. The selection of street trees will be coordinated with utilities and street lights to create a continuous canopy of trees along the streets. Additional trees will be strategically placed in irregular patterns, and screening trees will be positioned near building ends to soften the architectural features. Atiered approach will be employed, incorporating low -growing groundcover, intermediate shrubs, and background shrubs to provide a diverse landscape with seasonal colors and textural contrast. Please refer to the plant palette for suggested species and required sizes. 0 Croak Road Hillside Condition Neighborhood Entries To emphasize the arrival and unique character of the community, incorporate distinctive plantings or monuments at entry points. Ensure that the design of these features aligns with the architectural style of the surroundings. Croak Road The sloped edge along Croak Road should continue the character of the valley and have a natural and California landscape. It should include grasses, native plants, trees and low-lying groundcovers. The east side of Croak Road is a gentle hillside, shown below. Open Space Interface Roads Streets along the open space should have a rural and lightly landscaped edge that allows for views of the valley. The opposite site should provide street trees and a variety of planting. Scale: N.T.S. Entry monument with thematic landscaping Street trees in parkway strips or front yard planting areas LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES COMMON LANDSCAPE AREAS Paseos Paseos are designated pedestrian walkways within the community, offering a pleasant and convenient means of getting around without interference from vehicles. It is essential to adorn the paseos with carefully selected plantings that enhance the visual appeal and provide an enjoyable walking experience. Additionally, incorporating seating areas, fountains, or sculptures along the paseos can further enhance the overall ambiance. The paseos should seamlessly integrate into the overall design of the residential development. Alleyways By strategically considering their placement and design, garages can be integrated into the landscape in a way that minimizes their visual prominence and enhances the overall landscape experience. Introducing suitable plantings such as small hedges or climbing trellises between garage doors can soften the appearance of alleyways. Landscaping between garage doors To safeguard the landscaping from interference by vehicles or pedestrians, raised planting surfaces, depressed walkways, or curbs should be employed. Concrete mow -strips should separate turf and shrub areas, creating a connected network of pathways, and incorporating focal elements along sight lines. Neighborhood paseos 4 73 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES POCKET PARKS Pocket parks are small green spaces nestled into the fabric of an urban neighborhood that provide public space for social engagement, relaxation, and exercise. Pocket parks typically feature seating opportunities, aesthetic landscaping, and other amenities that improve the physical and psychological well-being of local residents. Pocket parks often fill irregularly shaped or underutilized lots and can serve as focal points of activity and interest for the surrounding population. Pocket parks also offer convenient points of access for emergency vehicles by connecting the inner community zone to the external arterial roads. This is achieved through the strategic placement of durable and weather - resistant hardscape materials that can support heavy vehicles, for example, a full-sized fire engine. Hardscape treatments such as decorative pavers provide a unique plaza experience for visitors while ensuring safety and efficiency for emergency responders. Pocket parks LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Parcel 7 There is an opportunity for a pocket park within Parcel 7. This common green space would directly serve the adjacent residential buildings and provide a key connection to to the existing developement and park. In addition to an open area for social gathering, the pocket park would feature a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Neighborhood Square park to the north, a green landscaped perimeter, and outdoor site elements such as benches and lighting. Parcel 8 There is an opportunity for a pocket park in the northern area within Parcel 8. This common green space would directly serve the adjacent 5-plex residential building and provide a key connection to Central Parkway. In addition to an open area for social gathering, the pocket park would feature a pedestrian and bicycle connection to East Ranch, a green landscaped perimeter, and outdoor site elements such as benches and lighting. There is an additional pocket park opportunity along the western edge of Parcel 8 with frontage to Croak Road. This area may potentially offer additional common space and seating opportunities to improve quality of life and community cohesion. This location could provide direct pedestrian and bicycle access to the sidewalk and supplement neighborhood connections to the surrounding circulation network. Pocket Park with Ped. / Bike Access Parcel 7 6.50 Ac r rJ p Parcel 7 pocket park opportunity area a I/ Pocket Park 1 1 Pocket Park with Ped. / Bike Access Parcel 8 7.20 Ac Intl lilt - -, • • L Parcel 8 pocket park opportunity areas 6 75 Dublin Fallon 580 + . DESIGN GUIDELINES OUTDOOR SITE ELEMENTS Street Lighting All street lighting in the residential neighborhood will conform to approved City standards. Street lighting is used for both decoration as well as marking special pathways and landmarks. Model: The Lumec L60 LED Hexagonal Lantern series on 18.5' tall post is recommended, to match the current City's standard. Mailbox Clustered mailbox will be used. The mailbox location/ model shall be reviewed and approved by USPS. Signage Signage shall conform to City ordinances. Perimeter Fence For security reasons, it may be necessary to install a fence around the property. To enhance the visual appeal, it is recommended to incorporate landscaping elements such as climbing vines and tall hedges adjacent to the fence. Gates should be included in walls or fences as needed to ensure emergency or maintenance access. 0 Street Lighting Scale: N.T.S. Benches and Trash Receptacles Benches and trash receptacles should be placed strategically to ensure visitor convenience. The model of bench and trash receptacle should be consistent throughout the neighborhood. Bike Parking Bicycle racks play a crucial role in promoting sustainable and active transportation. Provide bicycle parking, where feasible, to support intermodal travel for residents. 11111hI}1Iljlii l nmpA :. l�i II 111111111 uumlllllll Perimeter fence Benches and trash receptacles Bicycle parking .:--...111111111111911111ji 7 76 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES FENCES AND WALLS The landscape system encompasses community theme walls, fencing, and front yard planting. Each element of the landscape is carefully designed to reflect the unique character and exceptional quality of the community. Typically, fences will be positioned away from the view triangles at intersections to ensure visibility and safety. Where necessary, breaks in the fence, removable sections, or gates will be incorporated to allow for maintenance access to adjacent utilities, such as water quality basins. Good Neighbor Fence - The good neighbor fence should be located between lots. The design is a vertical board wood fence, 6'tall with caps and fascia boards. Wood 4x4 posts are located at a minimum of 8'on center. 4'k4" Post —Ike" cap Lattice Top Fence - This fence should be used parallel to the front of the home. Where side yards abut a residential street, the lattice fence will also be used. Where the fence is adjacent to the street, a 3 foot landscape buffer, at a minimum, is provided between the walkway and fence. Open Space Interface Fence - This fence should be utilized along the wildfire buffer lots where they abut open space. The fence should not exceed 4 feet in height. Concrete Split Rail Fence - This fence is utilized in the landscape along the southern sidewalks of street B serving as a thematic element to keep pedestrians out of water quality basins. CMU Block Wall - Use split face CMU block wall where needed to retain throughout the community. Tree plantings for screening on the retaining wall slope are discussed in the following section. "kS" with 1" Overlap Each Side 0 6'-0" • 2'k12" Kid( Board 2'Sc4" Bottom Rail Good Neighbor Fence Scale: N.T.S. 1 8'-0" MAX C C HH C C C fjP 0 Lattice Top Fence 2"x6" Cap Vertical Wood Lattice 4"x4" Post 1"x8" With 1" Overlap Each Side 2"x4" Bottom Rail 1"x6" Kick Board • 1.0,111 lrrall1MMMMMM MM M as s rttreeu jMt1MMMMMMMRMII ill as rUr!rl:rrr •I Scale: N.T.S. 8 77 i Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES O O 1'x4"Tap Rail - - ti lti 7 4'x4" Post 1, 1"x4"MdRa,1 1"x4" Bottom Rail Welded Wire Mesh 2"x4" Grids Open Space Interface Fence 1 Scale: N.T.S. Concrete Split Rail Fence Scale: N.T.S. Thin CMU Cap ---\ CMU Block MFR. Castlelite Finish: Split -Face Color Standard #419 - OCMU Retaining Wall Scale: N.T.S. 78 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING DESIGN The landscaping should elevate the overall quality of the neighborhood by framing and softening the look of structures, delineating site functions, and providing screening and buffering from adjacent uses. Whenever feasible, landscaped areas should follow a three -tiered planting approach: 1) trees, taking into account the available planting space; 2) shrubs; and 3) grasses, ground covers, and vines. Utilize tree patterns and structure to emphasize entries, create edges, provide privacy, and itnegrate open space. This ensures a visually appealing landscape design. This is not an exhaustive list and development plans may include others that appropriate for the project and microclimate. PLANTING LIST - TREES Street Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Plant material should be selected appropriately for location and microclimate. Provide a combination of evergreen, deciduous and flowering trees. A variety of flowering, variegated, and evergreen shrubs should be mixed to maintain visual interest and seasonal diversity. Emphasis will be placed on the use of low-water, climate - adapted, and deer -resistant plant materials. Plants should be selected and spaced appropriately for their mature size to ensure healthy growth and to reduce trimming and shearing. Micro -climates, soil conditions, and irrigation water quality must be considered in plant selection. Plants with similar watering needs should be planted together to prevent under or over watering. HEIGHT SPREAD Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' Red Maple 60' 15' Celtissinensis Chinese Hackberry 40' 40' Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain Tree 30' 35' Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 25' 25' Pistacia chinensis 'Keith Davey' Chinese Pistache 40' 40' Platanus x acerifolia'Yarwood' London Plane Tree 60' 35' Prunus x yedoensis 'Akebono' Yoshino Cherry 25' 25' Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 50' 50' Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' Greenspire Little Leaf Linden 40' 30' Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm 60' 50' Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova 50' 50' Quercus agrifolia Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' Ulmus parvifolia Zelkova serrata 10 r 79 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES Accent Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Acer buergerianum Triden Maple 20'O.C. Acer palmatum Japanese maple 20'O.C. Arbutus 'Marina' Strawberry Tree 30' O.C. Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 20'O.C. Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa 25' O.C. Citrus spp. Citrus 15' O.C. Cotinus coggygria Smoke Tree 25' O.C. Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree 25' O.C. Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 25'O.C. Laurus nobilis Sweet Bay 25' O.C. Prunus sargentii Sargent Cherry 25'O.C. Enhanced Open Space Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Aesculus californica California Buckeye 25'O.C. Arctostaphylos 'Dr Hurd' Manzanita 15'O.C. Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 20'O.C. Geijera parviflora Australian Willow 20'O.C. Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust 30'O.C. Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 40'O.C. Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 50'O.C. Quercus robur fastigiata English Oak 15'O.C. Quercus suber Cork Oak 50'O.C. Schinus molle California Pepper Tree 50'O.C. Umbellularia californica California Bay 50'O.C. Chitalpa tashkentensis Quercus suber Geijera parviflora LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Residential Screening Trees BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Carpinus betulus European Hornbeam 20'O.C. Garrya elliptica Silk Tassel Tree 15'O.C. Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem' Southern Magnolia 20'O.C. Metrosideros excelsa New Zealand Christmas Tree 25' O.C. Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum 20' O.C. Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry 20'O.C. Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 20'O.C. Rhamnus alaternus Italian Buckthorn 15'O.C. Rhus lancea African Sumac 25'O.C. Retaining Wall Trees The sloped planting area at the retaining wall at Parcel 7 should feature two rows of trees to provide screening. These should be triangulated with a spacing of 35 feet on center between trees and rows. The first row of trees should be offset 15 feet from the retaining wall. At the north end of the wall, only one row of trees should be planted given the limited space. Carpinus betulus Nyssa sylvatica BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME BOX SIZE HEIGHT SPACING WALL OFFSET Ulmus parvifolia'Emer II' Allee Lacebark Elm 36 inches 40 feet 35 feet 15 feet Ulmus parvifolia'Emer II' 12 81 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - SHRUBS Accent Shrubs BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Agave spp. Agave 18" O.C. Aloe striata Carol Aloe 18" O.C. Anigozanthos spp. Kangaroo Paw 36" O.C. Bulbine frutescens Stalked Bulbine 36" O.C. Coreopsis spp. Coreopsis 24" O.C. Dasylirion wheeleri Spoon Yucca 48" O.C. Dianella tasmanica Tasman Flax Lily 30" O.C. Hemerocallis Day Lily 36" O.C. Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca 30" O.C. Heuchera spp. Coral Bells 24" O.C. Iris douglasiona Pacific Coast Iris 18" O.C. Kniphofia uvaria Red Hot Poker 30" O.C. Lantana spp. Lantana 48" O.C. Liriope muscari Lily Turf 24" O.C. Penstemon spp. Penstemon 36" O.C. Teucrium chamaedrys Germander 24" O.C. Verbena Verbena 24" O.C. Bulbine frutescens Lantana spp. Penstemon Teucrium chamadrys LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES Tall Shrubs BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Abelia spp. Abelia 36"O.C. Arbutus unedo 'Com pacta' Compact Strawberry Bush 48"O.C. Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita 96" O.C. Buddleia davidii Butterfly Bush 60"O.C. Carpenteria californica Bush Anemore 60"O.C. Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush 60"O.C. Euonymus japonica Spindle Tree 60"O.C. Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava 120"O.C. Lavatera maritima Tree Mallow 84"O.C. Ligustrum J. 'Texanum' Waxleaf Privet 72" O.C. Loropetalum chinensis Chinese Fringe Flower 72"O.C. Myrica californica Wax Myrtle 15' O.C. Myrsine africana African Boxwood 60"O.C. Prostanthera ovalifolia Mint Bush 84" O.C. Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry 72" O.C. Ribes spp. Currant 72" O.C. Arctostaphylos spp. Anigozanthos Camellia japonica Lavatera maritima 14 83 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES Medium Shrubs BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Asparagus densiflorus 'Myers' Foxtail Fern 36"O.C. Callistemon 'Little John' Dwarf Cottlebrush 36"O.C. Cistus spp. Rock Rose 48" O.C. Coleonema spp. Breath of Heaven 48" O.C. Dietes spp. Fortnight Lily 36"O.C. Epilobium canum California Fuchsia 30"O.C. Escallonia Jubilee' Escallonia 60" O.C. Euphorbia rigida Silver Spurge 36"O.C. Grevillea 'Noelii' Grevillea 36"O.C. Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Dwarf Myrtle 30"O.C. Nandina spp. Nandina/Heavenly Bamboo 30"O.C. Nepeta x faassenii Catmint 30" O.C. Nephrolepis cordifolia 'California' California Fern 48"O.C. Olea europaea 'Montra' Little Olive 72"O.C. Perovskia atriplicifolia Russian Sage 36"O.C. Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax 48" O.C. Pittosporum tobira Dwarf Mock Orange 60"O.C. Rhaphiolepsis indica Indian Hawthorn 72"O.C. Salvia spp. Sage 48" O.C. Teucrium fructicans Bush Germander 48"O.C. Sedum spp. Stonecrop 24" O.C. Viburnum tinus compacta Viburnum 48" O.C. Westringia fruticosa 'Mundi' Coast Rosemary 36"O.C. Dietes spp. Teucrium fruticans Olea europaea 'Montra' Salvia spp. 84 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - GRASSES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama Grass 30"O.C. Calamagrostis 'Karl Foerster' Feather Reed Grasses 36"O.C. Carex spp. Sedge 24" O.C. Chondropetalum tectorum Small Cape Rush 36"O.C. Festuca californica California Fescue 24"O.C. Juncus patens California Gray Rush 24"O.C. Leymus condensatus'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye 48" O.C. Lomandra longifolia Dwarf Mat Rush 36"O.C. Muhlenbergia rigens Meadow Muhly 36"O.C. Pennisetum alopecuroides Dwarf Fountain Grass 30"O.C. Pennisetum setaceum 'Rubrum' Red Fountain Grass 30"O.C. PLANTING LIST - VINES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPREAD Bougainvillea spp. Bougainvillea 20' Ficus pumila Creeping Fig 30' Hardenbergia violacea Purple Vine Lilac 10' Jasminum spp. Jasmine 20' Lonicera japonica Honeysuckle 20' Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper 30' Solanum laxum Potato Vine 25' Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria 15' Bougainvillea spp. Hardenbergia violacea Ficus pumila Festuca californica Juncus patens Lomandra longifolia Muhlenbergia rigens 16 85 Dublin Fallon 580 DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - GROUNDCOVERS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Acacia redolens Acacia 10' O.C. Achillea millefolium Yarrow 30" O.C. Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush 72" O.C. Ceanothus griseus California Lilac 60"O.C. Coprosoma kirkii 'Verde Vista' Prostate Mirror Plant 60"O.C. Dymondia margaretae Silver Carpet 36" O.C. Erigeron glaucus'Sea Breeze' Seaside Daisy 36" O.C. Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy 36"O.C. Gazania spp. Gazania 24" O.C. Geranium spp. Hardy Scented Geramium 24"O.C. Juniperus spp. Juniper 60" O.C. Limonium perezii Sea Lavender 24"O.C. Mimulus x Jelly Bean Orange' Sticky Monkey Flower 48"O.C. Myoporum parvifolium 'Pink' Myoporum'Pink' 72" O.C. Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geramium 48" O.C. Oenothera speciosa 'Childsii' Mexican Evening Primrose 36"O.C. Osteospermum fruticosum African Daisy 60"O.C. Rosa 'Carpet Rose' Carpet Rose 48"O.C. Rosmarinus officinalis 'H untington Carpet' Rosemary 60" O.C. Senecio serpens Blue Chalk Sticks 24"O.C. Stachys byzantina Lamb's Ears 24"O.C. Stachys byzantina Rosmarinus officinalus Myoporum parvifolium'Pink' Senecio serpens 17 86 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES PLANTING LIST - STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS Plants play an important role in the function of landscape -based stormwater treatment measures. All species listed are included in the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Guidebook and are suitable for stormwater treatment measures. Trees in Stormwater Treatment Areas BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Aesculus californica Buckeye 25'O.C. Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree 25' O.C. Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum 25' O.C. Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 50'O.C. Platanus racemosa Calfornia Sycamore 40'O.C. Ulmus propinqua 'JFS-Bieberich' Emerald Sunshine Elm 25'O.C. Shrubs & Grasses in Stormwater Treatment Areas BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow 30"O.C. Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks' Coyote Brush Prostrate 72"O.C. Carex pansa California Meadow Sedge 18"O.C. Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush 36"O.C. Eriogonum fasciculatum Flattop Buckwheat 36" O.C. Juncus patens Blue Rush 24"O.C. Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild Rye 48"O.C. Limonium californicum Marsh Rosemary 24"O.C. Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass 36" O.C. Nasella pulchra Purple Needlegrass 30"O.C. Salvia clevelandii Cleveland Sage 48"O.C. Epilobium densiflorum Dense Spike Primrose 30"O.C. Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks' Juncus patens Epilobium densiflorum 18 r 87 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. XX — 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FOR THE DUBLIN FALLON 580 PROJECT PLPA-2023-00033 (APNS 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-002, 985-0027-005, AND 985-0027-004) WHEREAS, the Property Owner, GH PacVest LLC, is requesting approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, an amendment to the existing Planned Development (PD) Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan, approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential use, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667, and a Development Agreement for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use designation and convert 42.6 acres designated Open Space to Parks/Public-Recreation, establish development standards for the future development of 238 residential units and approximately 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/campus office use. The 192-acre site would be subdivided into 11 parcels. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Dublin Fallon 580 Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the 192-acre site is located in eastern Dublin east of Fallon Road, north of I- 580, and along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension; and WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations are Medium High Density, General Commercial/Campus Office, Community Park, Parks/Public Recreation, Open Space, and Public Semi Public; and WHEREAS, the project site is located within Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05 for Fallon Village which allows for up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/office development; and WHEREAS, the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8663 will allow for the orderly division of the Dublin Fallon 580 Project Property into 11 parcels consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8666 and 8667 will allow for the orderly division of the Dublin Fallon 580 Project Property for Medium High Density residential, consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs;" and Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 1 of 34 88 WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum for the Project (the "Addendum"), which is incorporated by reference. The Addendum reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the development potential of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 24-05, recommending approval of the Dublin Fallon 580 Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated July 16, 2024 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed for City Council the following: 1) the General Plan Amendment/ Easten Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, 2) the Planned Development Zoning District with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, 3) a Development Agreement, and 4) a CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including 1) the proposed Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, 2) the General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, 3) the Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, 4) Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and 5) a Development Agreement, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum and all above -referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8667, and 8668 for the Project: A. The proposed subdivision maps together with the provisions for their design and improvement are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan in that Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667: 1) are consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances; 2) are consistent with the land use designations and acreages of the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 3) provide for the future extension of Dublin Boulevard; and 4) respect the Airport Protection Area Line as the limit of residential development. B. The subdivision site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development in that: 1) the design and improvements of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667 are consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan objectives, polices, general land uses, and programs as they relate to the subject property because Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 2 of 34 89 they would create subdivisions for implementation of Medium -High Density Residential, General Commercial/Campus Office, Parks/Public Recreation, and Open Space uses and the subject property is designated for these types of developments; 2) the Project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development and is consistent with the land use designations of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and consistent with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan as amended and adopted with this Project; 3) the subject property is a hillside development and generally slopes from the north east corner to 1-580; 4) the project proposes to mass grade the site and flatten it where necessary to allow for intended future users and create the Dublin Blvd extension road subgrade; 5) The grading proposed for the project will take into consideration the hilly terrain and will be designed to avoid excessive cuts and fills; and 6) a slope is proposed between the residential and industrial which provides a buffer between the uses. C. The tentative tract maps are consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision design or improvements of the tentative tract map are consistent with the city's general plan and any applicable specific plan in that land uses that would be developed of parcels created by Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8666, 8667 are consistent with the General Provisions and Development Standards for the Planned Development Zoning District for the Fallon Village area of which the site is a part, and the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan adopted with this Project. D. The subdivision design and proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: in that: 1) the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667 will not cause environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife of their habitat; 2) the project site is located adjacent to major roads, including 1-580 and the future extension of Dublin Boulevard, on approximately 192 acres of land; and 3) the topography of the property consists of rolling hills; however with an approved grading plan this site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of Medium -High Density Residential, General Commercial/Campus Office, Parks/Public Recreation, and Open Space uses. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health concerns in that: 1) the proposal is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and the City's ordinances enacted for the public health, safety, and welfare; 2) the project will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity nor will it be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; 3) no noxious odors, hazardous materials, or excessive noises will be produced; and 4) in order to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access to all portions of the site, access will be provided via private internal streets from Central Parkway, Croak Road via the future Central Parkway Extension, and the future Dublin Boulevard Extension 5) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines the City prepared a CEQA Addendum for the Project and, therefore, the proposed subdivision will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; or alternate easements are provided pursuant to Government Code in that: 1) the design of the subdivisions will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; and 2) the City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting easements of this nature. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 3 of 34 90 G. The design or improvements of the tentative maps are consistent with the city's general plan and any applicable specific plan in that: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps will subdivide the property, which is consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan approved for the Fallon Village area, and the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and 2) the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps will not alter the use of the site, which is allows residential, commercial/office, parks, and open space uses. H. The subdivision is designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in that: 1) the future buildings on the parcels will be oriented in a way that allows for natural heating and cooling opportunities; and 2) any future development will be required to comply with the California Green Building Code. I. The tentative tract map, including design and improvement, shall comply with all the applicable provisions and requirements of the zoning ordinance, the latest municipal stormwater permit issued to the city by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, this title, any other ordinance of the city, and the Subdivision Map Act in that: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8663 create eleven parcels and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 8666 and 8667 creates the residential portion of Vesting Tract Map 8663, which are consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan approved for the Fallon Village area, the Stage 2 Development adopted for this Project, and the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and 2) the Project is compliant with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit; 3) the Project would include bioretention areas and stormwater treatment vaults to ensure consistency with regional C.3 stormwater treatment; and 4) the Project would include full trash capture devices to ensure consistency with regional C.10 stormwater treatment requirements. NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby conditionally approves Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 8663, 8666, 8667 for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project, prepared by MacKay & Somps, dated April 2024, March 2024, and February 2024, respectively and are subject to the conditions included below, and in accordance with the Project Plans, incorporated herein by reference and attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits and shall be subject to Planning Division review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning; [B] Building; [PO] Police; [PW] Public Works; [ESD] Environmental Services Division; [ADM] Administration/City Attorney; [FIN] Finance; [PCS] Parks and Community Services; [F] Dublin Fire Prevention; [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District; [LDD] Livermore Dublin Disposal; [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health; [Zone 7] Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7; [LAVTA] Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority; and [CHS] California Department of Health Services. # CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to: GENERAL CONDITIONS Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 4 of 34 91 1. Approval. This approval is for the Dublin Fallon 580 (PLPA-2023-00033). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 8663, 8666, 8667 prepared by McKay & Somps, dated April 2024, March 2024, and February 2024, respectively, attached as Exhibit A and other plans, text, and diagrams PL On -going relating to this Project, and as specified as the following Conditions of Approval for this project. 2. Permit Expiration. The Vesting Tentative Tract Maps term shall coincide with the Term of Project Approvals defined in the Development Agreement. PW Defer to the DA 3. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law: provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be submitted to the City's promptly notifying or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. ADM, PW On -going 4. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the City Engineer and Community Development Director have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/Developer without going to a public hearing. The City Engineer and Community Development Director also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. PL, PW On -going PLANNING- PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 5. Mitigation Monitoring Program. Applicant/ Developer shall comply with CEQA Addendum for Dublin Fallon 580 Project dated April 8, 2024 including all mitigation measures, action programs, and implementation measures contained therein. PL, PW Approval of Improvement Plans and On - going 6. Inclusionary Housing. The proposed project shall comply with the City of Dublin Inclusionary Zoning PL On -going Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 5 of 34 92 Regulations as follows: The inclusionary housing requirement is 12.5 percent of the total number of units within the development and shall be satisfied as follows unless an alternate method of compliance is approved by City Council consistent with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations: • In -Lieu Fee: 40 percent of the total number of inclusionary units within the development shall be satisfied via payment of an "In -Lieu Fee" as provided by the City's Impact Fee Schedule. • On -site Affordable Units: 60 percent of the total number of inclusionary units within the development shall be developed on site. • On -site Affordable Units shall be dispersed throughout the neighborhood and constructed concurrently with the market rate units. • Execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units shall be required in accordance with DMC Chapter 8.68.1 consistent with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. 7. Open Space Areas. Private open space areas shall be planted and irrigated to create landscape that is attractive, conserves water, and requires minimal maintenance. PL Approval of Improvement Plans Fire Prevention 8. Fire Apparatus Access Road. All fire apparatus access road shall be with an approved all- weathered surface and capable of supporting imposed load of 75,000 lbs. F Approval of Improvement Plans 9. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant system design and installation shall meet requirements of California Fire Code and Dublin San Ramon Services District. F Approval of Improvement Plans 10. No fire service lines shall pass beneath buildings. F Approval of Improvement Plans 11. Buildings in Tract 8666 shall be constructed and met the requirements of one -or two-family dwelling/townhouse to meet the 2022 CFC Appendix D107.1 F Building Permit Issuance Dublin San Ramon Services District 12. Regulations that Apply to Development Projects. The regulations that apply to development projects are codified in: the Dublin DSRSD Building Permit Issuance and Improvement Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 6 of 34 93 San Ramon Services District Code (DSRSD); the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities" as amended from time to time; all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the pertinent documents. Plans 13. Fees. Planning and review fees, inspection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules and at time of payment as established in the DSRSD Code. Planning and review fees are due after the 1st submittal of plans. Construction Permit and Inspection Fees are due prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Capacity Reserve Fees are due before the water meter can be set or the connection to the sewer system. DSRSD Permit Submittal and Construction Permit Issuance 14. District Review and Acceptance. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the City; or any Building Permit or Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer and/or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a faithful performance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance or Construction Permit Issuance 15. Easements. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 16. Water and Sewer Services Analysis. The Developer will be required to enter into a Planning Services Agreement with DSRSD to conduct a DSRSD Grading Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 7 of 34 94 Water and Sewer Services Analysis to adequately size the water and sewer facilities for the project. 17. Planned District Major Infrastructure. Planned District major infrastructure is planned through this project area to provide sufficient service for this project. The location and size of the District's anticipated Major Infrastructure are shown in the District's Master Plans. To provide timely service and minimize construction conflicts, the applicant shall enter into an Area Wide Facility Agreement (AWFA) with the District for the installation of the major infrastructure through the project. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 18. Installation in Main Thoroughfares. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-de-sac is so restrictive that the standard separation requirements for water mains and sewer mains cannot be maintained, the water and sewer mains shall be installed within main thoroughfares, outside of alleyways or cul-de-sacs. Water and sewer mains may not be installed within courtyards. Water meters shall be installed around the outer perimeter of buildings. Installation of water lines from the meter to each unit shall be documented and submitted to the District. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 19. Provide Sufficient Capacity. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. DSRSD Grading Permit Issuance 20. Submission of Proposed Easements. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. DSRSD Grading Permit Issuance 21. Locate Facilities in Public Streets. Water and sewer mains shall be located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each sewer or water main in an off- street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 22. Looped or Interconnect Pipelines. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 8 of 34 95 DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 23. Sewers to Operate by Gravity Flow. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case -by -case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 30-year operations and maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 24. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI). The District employs Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), a fixed water meter reading system. The system uses radio communication between the individual water meter boxes or vaults and Tower Gateway Base Stations (TGBs) to transmit data on water consumption and meter readings. Due to the high density and tall profile of the buildings in this project, the buildings themselves may hinder effective communication between the individual meter boxes and the TGBs. Applicant shall fund an AMI Propagation Study provided by the District to determine if supplementary AMI communication equipment is required. If findings show that additional communication equipment is required, the developer shall be responsible for providing site and installation off supplementary equipment specific to the District's AMI system, as approved by both the City of Dublin and the District. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 25. Water and/or Sewer Capacity Demands. This project will be analyzed by DSRSD to determine if it represents additional water and/or sewer capacity demands on the District. Applicant will be required to pay all incremental capacity reserve fees for water and sewer services as required by the project demands. All capacity reserve fees must be paid prior to installation of a water meter for water. If a water meter is not required, the capacity reserve fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The District may not approve the building permit until capacity reserve fees are paid. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance or Construction Permit Issuance 26. Obtain Permit to Construct Demands. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted DSRSD Approval of Improvement Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 9 of 34 96 unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items listed under the Fees condition for DSRSD have been satisfied. Plans 27. Backflow Prevention Devices/Double Detector Check Valves. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 28. Proposed Irrigation. Any proposed irrigation for this project shall be designed for and connected to potable water. Unless explicitly stated otherwise by DSRSD, recycled water irrigation is unavailable for use for this project per DERWA recycled water moratorium Resolution No. 19-3 dated 3/24/2019. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 29. No Installation Under Pavers, Decorative Pavement or Concrete. Pipelines and related appurtenances shall not be constructed underneath pavers or decorative pavement or concrete unless a DSRSD grant of easement form is signed by the property owner. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 30. Offsite Easements. Offsite easements for connection to DSRSD water facilities may be required. The applicant shall be responsible for acquiring all necessary off site easements and constructing necessary off site water mains in conformance with all DSRSD requirements. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 31. Water Supply Assessment. The Developer shall be required to enter into a Planning Services Agreement with DSRSD to conduct a Water Supply Assessment to determine available supply for the project. This shall be completed before or during the Water Sewer Analysis with DSRSD. DSRSD Grading Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS 32. Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval contained below ("Standard Condition") unless specifically modified by Project Specific Conditions of Approval for the proposed Dublin Fallon 580 development project ("Development") set forth below. PW On -going 33. Compliance. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the PW On -going Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 10 of 34 97 Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All Development -related public improvements constructed by Applicant/Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771 unless otherwise specified in the Dublin Fallon 580 Development Agreement. Accordingly, Applicant/Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). 34. Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of permit issuance or final map approval unless otherwise specified in the Dublin Fallon 580 Development Agreement, including, but not limited to: Planning fees; Dublin San Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; Transportation Impact Fees; City of Dublin Fire fees; Noise Mitigation fees; Inclusionary House In -Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District fees; Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District. Various Depts Grading Permit Issuance or Final Map Approval 35. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The Applicant/Developer shall complete a "Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fee Application" and submit an accompanying exhibit for review by the Public Works Department. Fees generated by this application will be due at grading permit issuance or final map approval. PW Grading Permit Issuance or Final Map Approval PUBLIC WORKS — AGREEMENTS 36. Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement. Developer shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner's perpetual maintenance obligation for all stormwater management measures installed as part of the project, including those on -site and within the public Rights of Way. In addition to stormwater management measures, drainage v-ditches, mitigation areas, and existing wetlands shall be included for reference, as applicable. Said Agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022- 0018. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. PW Grading Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 11 of 34 98 The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. 37. Improvement Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for all public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the development, as determined by the City Engineer. The Improvement Agreement shall include security (Faithful Performance and Labor and Material) to guarantee completion of all required improvements for each appropriate phase or stage of the Development and associated Final Map. PW Final Map Approval 38. CC&Rs/Operating Agreement language: At a minimum, the following statements or similar must be included in the HOAs/CC&R's and POAs/Operating Agreement: • Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement. The Development is subject to the Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement dated and recorded PW/ESD Approval of Final Map in which Stormwater Infrastructure is Associated on as Document No. in the records of Alameda County, CA. Under the Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement, this Development is responsible for ensuring that the installed stormwater management measures remain in effective operating condition in perpetuity. Commencing on the date the Homeowners Association/Property Owner's Association (select appropriate entity) begins operation, the Association assumes the rights and duties of the Property Owner as defined in the Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement. The Board shall have full right, power and authority to act on behalf of the Association, its Members and the town home, condominium, single-family homeowners, commercial tenants under the Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement. • On -lot bioretention areas (as applicable): The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of all stormwater management measures, including the bioretention areas on private lots. The private, on -lot bioretention areas Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 12 of 34 gg shall be maintained in accordance with the Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement and shall not be modified without written approval from the City of Dublin. • Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance: The stormwater management measures (bioretention, ponds, trash capture devices, etc.) shall be inspected and maintained as detailed in the Stormwater Management Maintenance Agreement. The Association shall maintain an inspection and maintenance record on file made available to the City upon request. In addition, all on -site storm drains shall be cleaned at least annually before commencement of the rainy season (by October 1) of each year. • Storm Drainage Restrictions: As part of the original construction of the Development, stormwater management measures were installed within the Development in connection with the Development's drainage system. Neither the Association nor any Owner shall do any work, construct any improvement, place any landscaping or otherwise perform any action whatsoever which alters or interferes with the drainage pattern for any Lot or any portion of the Common Areas, except to the extent such alteration in drainage pattern is approved in writing by the City of Dublin. • Good Housekeeping: The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for litter control and sweeping of all paved surfaces within the development. All private storm drain systems are to be cleaned immediately before the commencement of the rainy season (October 15). • Landscape Maintenance: Landscaping shall be designed with an efficient irrigation system to reduce runoff and promote surface infiltration. Landscaping shall also be designed and maintained to minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Each Owner, and the Association, is encouraged to use integrated pest management practices (less toxic pest management) as a first step in maintaining landscaping. Chemical pesticides and Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 13 of 34 100 fertilizers should be employed as a last step in managing weeds and other pests, and shall not be applied prior to forecast rain. • Waste Haul Vehicle Back -Up Noise: For units where individual cart service is proposed for short alleys without truck turn around, the property disclosures shall notify future property owners that waste service vehicles will include backup noise/beeping as early as 6AM on trash service day. To service all three streams (landfill, organics, recycling), three different trucks will be on - site each collection day. PUBLIC WORKS — PERMITS AND BONDS 39. Encroachment Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. PW Permit Issuance 40. Grading Permit. Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading. PW Permit Issuance 41. Security. Applicant/Developer shall provide faithful performance security to guarantee the improvements, as well as payment security, as determined by the City Engineer (Note: The performance security shall remain in effect until one year after final inspection). PW Permit Issuance 42. Permits from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer shall obtain all permits and/or approvals for the Development required by other agencies including, but not limited to: • US Army Corps of Engineers • US Fish and Wildlife Service • Regional Water Quality Control Board • Federal Emergency Management Agency • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • The five entities above shall collectively be referred to as "Resource Agencies" • California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans) • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) • Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) • Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority • Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) PW Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 14 of 34 101 • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7) PUBLIC WORKS - SUBMITTALS 43. Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements. All submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", the "City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List," and current Public Works and industry standards. A complete submittal of improvement plans shall include all civil improvements, joint trench, street lighting and on - site safety lighting, landscape plans, and all associated documents as required. Applicant/Developer shall not piecemeal the submittal by submitting various components separately. PW Grading Permit Issuance 44. Improvement Plan Requirements from Other Agencies. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non -City agencies, including but not limited to: the Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. PW Grading Permit Issuance 45. Composite Exhibit. Construction plan set shall include a Composite Exhibit showing all site improvements, utilities, landscaping improvements and trees, etc. to be constructed to ensure that there are no conflicts among the proposed and existing improvements. PW Grading Permit Issuance 46. Geotechnical Report. Applicant/Developer shall submit a Design Level Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections, grading and additional information and/or clarifications as determined by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit Issuance 47. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Applicant/Developer shall submit an Ownership and Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning Division and Public Works Department. Terms of maintenance are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. PL, PW Approval of Final Map or Grading Permit Issuance 48. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. PW Acceptance of Improvements Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 15 of 34 102 49. Approved Plan Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF format file of approved site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping & irrigation, joint trench and lighting. PW Grading Permit Issuance 50. Master Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the project, in a format acceptable to the City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. PW Acceptance of Improvements 51. Environmental and Sustainability Files. Applicant/Developer shall provide to the Public Works Department GIS shape files, provided in a format acceptable to the City, all MRP Provision C.3 stormwater features, trash capture devices, mitigation measures, wetlands, v-ditches and public waste containers. PW/ESD Acceptance of Improvements 52. SB 1383 Compliance Reporting. To comply with SB 1383, applicant shall keep and maintain a copy of all records pertaining to the procurement of SB 1383 compliant compost and mulch. Applicant shall provide to the Public Works Department records indicating the total compost and mulch procured or used, the quantity of compost (tons or cubic yards) and mulch (tons) procured from each facility or entity, facility or vendor information (name of facility, address, contact information), a general description of how the compost and/or mulch was used, and where compost and mulch was used, and invoices demonstrating procurement. PW/ESD Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS — FINAL MAP, EASEMENTS AND ACCESS RIGHTS 53. Dedications. All rights -of -way and easement dedications required by these conditions or determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be shown at each Final Map phase unless made by separate instrument in accordance with the Dublin Fallon 580 Development Agreement. PW Final Map Approval 54. Public Service Easements. A Public Service Easement (PSE) shall be dedicated along the project's frontage to allow for the proper placement of public utility vaults, boxes, appurtenances or similar items behind the back -of -sidewalk. Private improvements such as fences, gates or trellises shall not be located within the PSE. PW Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 16 of 34 103 55. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements. The Applicant/Developer shall dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear pavement width of all drive aisles as required by the Alameda County Fire Department and City Engineer. PW Final Map Approval 56. Abandonment of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and rights -of -way within the project site that will no longer be used. Prior to completion of abandonment, the improvement plans may be approved if the Applicant/Developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the abandonment process has been initiated. PW Final Map Approval 57. Acquisition of Easements. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all onsite and offsite easements, and/or obtain rights -of -entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements not located on their property. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare all required documentation for dedication of all easements on - site and off -site. The easements and/or rights -of - entry shall be in writing and copies furnished to the Public Works Department. PW Final Map Approval 58. Approval by Others. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all applicable non -City agencies. PW Final Map Approval PUBLIC WORKS - GRADING 59. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Tentative Maps , and the City design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil engineer's recommendation and the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. PW Grading Permit Issuance 60. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all grading plans prior to City approval. PW Grading Permit Issuance/ Sitework Permit 61. Grading Off -Haul. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off -haul dirt materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. If the Applicant/Developer does not own the parcel on which the proposed disposal site is located, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with a Letter of Consent signed by the current owner, PW Grading Permit Issuance/ Sitework Permit Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 17 of 34 104 approving the placement of off -haul material on their parcel. A Grading Plan may be required for the placement of the off -haul material. A Transportation Permit or Encroachment Permit may be required for the haul route, as determined by the City Engineer, which shall include a pre- and post -hauling survey of the pavement condition. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for repairing damaged pavement due to hauling operations, as determined by the City Engineer. 62. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. The plan shall also address site housekeeping best management practices. PW Grading Permit Issuance Demolition Plan. The Applicant/Developer's Civil Engineer shall prepare a demolition plan for the project, which shall be submitted concurrent with the improvement plan package. The demolition plan shall address the following: • Pavement demolition, including streetlights and landscaped median islands. • Landscaping and irrigation • Fencing to be removed and fencing to remain • Any items to be saved in place and or protected, such as trees, water meters, sewer cleanouts, drainage inlets or backflow prevention devices. PW Grading Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS — STORM DRAINAGE & OTHER UTILITIES 63. On -site Storm Drain System. Storm drainage for the 10-year storm event shall be collected on -site and conveyed through storm drains to the public storm drain system. Show the size and location of existing and proposed storm drains and catch basins on the site plan. Show the size and location of public storm drain lines and the points of connection for the on -site storm drain system. PW Grading Permit Issuance 64. Overland Release. Grading and drainage shall be designed so that surplus drainage (above and beyond that of the 10-year storm event) not collected in site catch basins, is directed overland so as not to cause flooding of existing or proposed buildings. PW Grading Permit Issuance 65. Storm Drain Easements. Private storm drain easements and maintenance roads shall be provided for all private storm drains or ditches that are located on private property. The PW Grading Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 18 of 34 105 Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for the acquisition of all storm drain easements from offsite property owners which are required for the connection and maintenance of all offsite storm drainage improvements. 66. Storm Drain Inlet Markers. All public and private storm drain inlets must be marked with storm drain markers that read: "No dumping, drains to creek," and a note shall be shown on the improvement plans. The markers may be purchased from the Public Work Department. PW Acceptance of Improvements 67. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street opposite each hydrant, and shown on the signing & striping plan. PW Acceptance of Improvements 68. Dry Utilities. Applicant/Developer shall construct gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, and communication improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 69. Dry Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV, and communications utilities, shall be placed underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements or public services easements and sized to meet utility company standards. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 70. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in landscaped areas and screened from public view. Landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be submitted along with the grading and/or improvement plans. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS - STREET IMPROVEMENTS 71. Public Improvements. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown on the Tentative Maps. However, the approval of the Tentative Maps is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, traffic circulation, parking, stormwater treatment, sidewalks and street improvements. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 72. Public Improvement Conformance. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans, current practices, and design PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 19 of 34 106 requirements and as approved by the City Engineer. 73. Public Street Slopes. Public streets shall be a minimum 1 % slope with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bulb outs. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 74. Pavement Structural Sections. Asphalt concrete pavement sections within the public right-of-way shall be designed using the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design (including the asphalt factor of safety), an assumed R-Value of 5. Final pavement sections shall be based on the actual R- Value obtained from pavement subgrade. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 75. Curb Ramps. City standard curb ramps are required at all intersections. All curb ramps shall include truncated domes, and meet the most current City and ADA design standards. Show curb ramp locations on the plans. Please note that all curb returns on public streets shall have directional or dual ADA ramps — one for each crosswalk and oriented to align parallel with the crosswalk. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 76. Visibility Triangle. All improvements within the sight visibility triangle at all intersections, including but not limited to walls and landscaping, shall be a maximum height of 30" from the roadway surface elevation at the nearest lane. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 77. Traffic Signing and Striping. Applicant/Developer shall install all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings as required by the City Engineer. Signing plans shall show street name and stop signs and any other regulatory signage appropriate for the project. Striping plans shall show stop bars, lane lines and channelization as necessary. Striping plans shall distinguish between existing striping to be removed and new striping to be installed. All striping shall be thermoplastic. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 78. Street Lighting. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed or relocated as determined by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION 79. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City's acceptance of the improvements. PW Start of Construction and On -going 80. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction PW Start of Construction and Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 20 of 34 107 within 100 ft of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. On -going 81. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non -City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case -by -case basis. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right-of-way are more restrictive. PW Start of Construction and On -going 82. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the construction work perimeter to separate the construction area from the public. All construction activities shall be confined within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated/stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction and On -going as Needed 83. Construction Noise Management Plan. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. PW Start of Construction Implementation, and On -going as needed 84. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during construction shall be implemented through a City- approved Traffic Control Plan and shall be done with the goal of minimizing the impact on pedestrian circulation. PW Start of Construction and On -going as needed 85. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. Applicant/Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation, and On -going as needed Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 21 of 34 108 86. Pest Control. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. PW On -going 87. Dust Control Measures. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust- palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation On -going as needed 88. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Applicant/Developer shall provide adequate dust control measures at all times during the grading and hauling operations. All trucks hauling export and import materials shall be provided with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of haul materials and mud -tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented at all times. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for sweeping of streets within, surrounding and adjacent to the project, as well as along the haul route, if it is determined that the tracking or accumulation of material on the streets is due to its construction activities. PW During Grading and Site Work 89. Construction Traffic and Parking. All construction -related parking shall be off-street in an area provided by the Applicant/Developer. Construction traffic and parking shall be provided in a manner approved by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction and On -going PUBLIC WORKS — EROSION CONTROL & STORMWATER QUALITY 90. Stormwater Treatment. Consistent with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) Order No. R2-2022-0018 the Applicant/Developer shall submit documentation including construction drawings demonstrating all stormwater treatment measures and hydromodification requirements as applicable are met. PW/ESD Grading Permit Issuance 91. Stormwater Site Design and Source Control. All applicable site design measures and structural and operational stormwater source controls shall be implemented as required by the MRP. PW/ESD Grading/Sitework Permit Issuance 92. Maintenance Access. Applicant/Developer shall design and construct maintenance access to all stormwater management measures and mitigation swales, as appropriate. Maintenance access for equipment and personnel to overflow risers, cleanouts and other structures is required. The final number, location, width, and surfacing of maintenance access points from public or private streets is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. PW/ESD Grading Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 22 of 34 109 93. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading, Applicant/Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. PW Start of Any Construction Activities 94. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. The Applicant/Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. PW SWPPP to be Prepared Prior to Grading Permit Issuance; Implementation Prior to Start of Construction and On -going as needed 95. Stormwater Management Plan. The Stormwater Management Plan has been approved in concept only. A final Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Approval is subject to the Applicant/Developer providing the necessary plans, details, and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the standards issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. Landscape Based Stormwater Management Measures shall be irrigated and be on a separate irrigation controller from traditional landscape, and meet WELO requirements. PW/ESD Grading Permit Issuance 96. Stormwater Control Plan. A narrative Stormwater Control Plan with sufficient detail to ensure the stormwater design, site plan, and landscaping plan are congruent shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The Stormwater Control Plan shall consist of a report and exhibit. Required details of the plan are available at: https://dublin.ca.gov/1656 PW/ESD Grading Permit Issuance 97. SB 1383 Compliance. To comply with SB 1383 procurement requirements, all mulch and compost used in stormwater management measures and general landscape areas shall meet SB 1383 procurement requirements. Specifically, compost must be produced at a permitted composting PW/ESD Grading Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 23 of 34 110 facility; digestate, biosolids, manure and mulch do not qualify as compost. Eligible mulch must be derived from organic materials and be produced at a permitted transfer station, landfill, or composting facility. Examples of allowed compost include arbor mulch and composted mulch. Examples of allowed mulch include mulch made from recycled pallets and dimensional lumber, aged tree trimmings, wood fines, and screened compost overs. Mulch must meet or exceed the physical contamination, maximum metal concentration, and pathogen density standards for land application specified in 14 CCR 17852(a)(24.5)(A)1 through 3. 98. Trash Capture. The project must include appropriate full trash capture devices for both private and public improvements. Specific details on the trash capture devices selected are required on the construction plan set demonstrating how MRP Provision C.10 (trash capture) requirements are met. A list of approved full trash capture devices may be found at the California Stormwater Quality Association website at the following link: https://www.casga.org/resources/trash/certified- fu l l-ca ptu re-system-tras h-treatme nt-control- devices. Please note that lead time for trash capture device delivery can be substantial. The applicant/contractor shall plan accordingly. PW Grading Permit Issuance 99. Phased Construction and Stormwater Management Measures. Required stormwater treatment, hydromodification management, and trash capture devices shall be installed concurrent with construction of the first phase of improvements. Temporary facilities are not permitted. PW/ESD Grading Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS — ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS 100. Photometrics. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a complete photometrics plan for both onsite and frontage roadways. Include the complete data on photometrics, including the High, Average and Minimum values for illuminance and uniformity ratio. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 101. Garbage Truck Access. The Applicant/Developer shall provide plans and details on anticipated garbage truck access and routes, in addition to example set -out diagrams for waste carts/bins placement on garbage day demonstrating adequate space available for carts/bins. Carts and bins shall not block street or driveway access. On street parking must be considered (e.g., if on street parking is allowed, demonstrate that there is PW/ESD Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 24 of 34 111 adequate space for parked cars and three -stream carts). PUBLIC WORKS - SPECIAL CONDITIONS Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District. The Developer shall petition to have the project area annexed into the Dublin Ranch Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District and shall provide any exhibits required for the annexation. In addition, Developer shall pay all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. PW First Final Map Approval 102. Traffic Impact Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay the Eastern Dublin and Tri-Valley Transportation Development traffic impact fees at each Final Map phase PW Final Map Approval 103. Local Transportation Analysis. Project will comply with the improvement requirements identified in the local transportation analysis to address deficiencies. PW Final Map Approval 104. Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District. The project is located within the Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District. The project shall meet the Benefit District requirements and Applicant shall pay fees as stated in Ordinance No. 06-07. PW First Final Map Approval 105. Final Map Signature Omissions. The Applicant shall send by certified mail, a copy of the proposed final map, together with a copy of the SMA Section, to any public entity or public utility which has previously acquired a right-of-way or easement on the parcels within the proposed subdivision informing them of the subdivision and consent to omit their signatures on the map, as described in Government Code Section 66436(A)(3)(a)(i). This shall be completed prior to approval of the large lot final map and future subdivision maps. PW First Final Map and Successive Final Maps 106. Conservation Easements. Final Maps shall delineate boundaries of conservation easements which may be required for on -site conservation areas. PW First Final Map Approval 107. Public Access Easement to Community Park. The Applicant/Developer shall dedicate Public Access Easement from Pandora Way through Parcel 7 to the Community Park (Parcel 5) on the large lot final map to ensure Parcel 5 is not landlocked. PW First Final Map Approval 108. Public Street Dedications. Applicant/Developer shall dedicate public street right-of-way on the property in fee and public service easements as required for the construction of the ultimate buildout PW First Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 25 of 34 112 geometry of Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Croak Road. Geometry shall include stormwater treatment within the public right-of-way. Additionally, two curb ramps per corner at each intersection are required. Right-of-way dedications shall accommodate these improvements. 109. Fiber Communication Conduit. Applicant shall work with the City to install conduit(s) for future City owned fiber communication lines on Croak Road, Central Parkway, Fallon Road, and Dublin Boulevard property frontages. PW Improvement Plan Approval 110. Existing Easements. Grading and construction of improvements proposed within existing easements shall be coordinated and authorized by the easement holder and any agency having existing utilities onsite. Applicant shall submit to the City written authorization from easement holders for work to be completed within their easements. PW Grading Permit Issuance 111. Right of Entry. The applicant shall obtain right of entry from adjacent property owner(s) for any grading work on adjacent property prior to permit issuance. PW Grading Permit Issuance 112. Grading at Public Service and Public Utility Easements. Slopes shall be a maximum of 2% within public utility easements and public service easements fronting rights -of -way. PW Grading Permit Issuance 113. Natural Community Park. The Natural Community Park as shown on Parcel 4 and Parcel 6 on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8663 shall be shown on the final map and deeded to the City of Dublin per the Dublin Fallon 580 Development Agreement. The City will not accept Parcels 4 and 6 on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8663 until all associated improvements are completed as generally shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 8663 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Park & Community Services Director. Required improvements include, but are not limited to, the following. • 12' wide compacted Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) maintenance access road with associated drainage generally as shown on the Tentative Maps. • Fencing and gate access separating maintenance access road and adjacent private parcel. • Fencing at the perimeter of the park to allow for grazing for vegetation management and protection from wild game (i.e. feral pigs). PW First Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 26 of 34 113 Caltrans standard detail A86 or approved equal. • Off-street access gates shall be located to provide a pull off area for truck/trailer while opening/closing the access gates. • Minimum 1/2 acre graded pad area for maintenance storage and provide access from public street to graded pad. • Utility Stubs: Storm drainage, sanitary sewer, potable water, recycled water (as applicable) and electric services shall be stubbed to each Natural Community Park parcel at locations approved by the City Engineer and Park & Community Services Director. 114. Maintenance Access Easement for Natural Community Park. Applicant/Developer shall dedicate maintenance access easements over all City maintenance entries and roads located on private parcels providing access to the Natural Community Park, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PW First Final Map Approval 115. Community Park. The Community Park shown on Parcel 5 on Vesting Tentative Map 8663 shall be shown on the final map and deeded to the City of Dublin by separate instrument. The City will not accept the future community park until the site is rough graded, including erosion control measures, and all associated improvements are completed as generally shown on Vesting Tentative Map 8663 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Parks & Community Services Director. Required improvements include, but are not limited to the following. • Secondary access from the cul-de-sac at Parcel 10 • Maintenance access • Utility Stubs: Storm drainage, sanitary sewer, potable water, recycled water (as applicable) and electric services shall be stubbed to the Community Park parcel at locations approved by the City Engineer and Park & Community Services Director. Parkland credits will not be provided until the required grading and improvements are complete or an agreement with the City is executed for the completion of the improvements. PW First Final Map Approval 116. Deed Disclosure for Waste Haul Vehicle Back -Up Noise. Deed disclosures shall be included for units where individual cart service is PW Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 27 of 34 114 proposed for short alleys without truck turn around. The property disclosures shall notify future property owners that waste service vehicles will include backup noise/beeping as early as 6AM on trash service day. To service all three streams (landfill, organics, recycling), three different trucks will be on -site each collection day. 117. Storm Drain Design. Applicant shall submit final hydrology/hydraulic report associated with final design of the project. Runoff coefficients used in the in the report shall be calculated using actual surfaces in the project (not assumed values), and use coefficients shown in Table 7-3 of the CWP C.3 Technical Manual. PW Grading Permit Issuance 118. Landscape Features within Public Right -of - Way. The Property Owner shall enter into an "Agreement for Long Term Encroachment for Landscape Features" with the City to require the Property Owner to maintain the landscape and decorative features within public right-of-way including frontage landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e. walls, portals, benches, etc.). The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The Property Owner will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 119. ReScape California Landscape Design. All publicly owned landscape (e.g. parks, right of way, etc.) shall be designed and rated to meet ReScape standards. The applicant is encouraged to design all other landscape areas according to ReScape Landscape standards. PW/ESD Grading Permit Issuance 120. Street Restoration. A pavement treatment, such as slurry seal or grind and overlay, will be required within the public streets fronting the site as determined by the Public Works Department. The type and limits of the pavement treatment shall be determined by the City Engineer based upon the number and proximity of trench cuts, extent of frontage and median improvements, extent of pavement striping and restriping, excessive wear and tear/damage due to construction traffic, etc. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 121. Overhead Utilities. All new and existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 122. Hydromodification Management Standards. This project is subject to hydromodification management measures. The Applicant/Developer PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 28 of 34 115 shall review the Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) Review Worksheet for all projects that must meet Hydromodification Management Standards. The worksheet is available on the City's website at the following webpage: http://dublin.ca.gov/1656/ 123. Special Projects, Non -LID Stormwater Treatment. No part of this project is considered a special project. Mechanical devices are not allowed. The project must use 100% LID for stormwater treatment. PW/ESD Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 124. Stormwater Management Design. • City standard details shall be used for bioretention areas along Croak Road and other public streets. • Interceptor trees are not allowed. • Trees located within bioretention areas are discouraged. • Any bubble -ups proposed shall be located outside of the treatment measure, in native soil. • For plant selection in bioretention areas, reference the City of Dublin Guidance for Plant Selection, Spacing and Irrigation in Stormwater Treatment Facilities located on the City's website at the following link: https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34418 /City-of-Dublin-Guidance-for-Plant-Selection- 622023?bidld= PW/ESD Final Map Approval 125. Mitigation Measures. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Division and the Public Works Department a copy of the mitigation measures maintenance manual and schedule for reference, including maintenance procedures and protocols to follow after mitigation reporting is complete. PW/ESD Acceptance of Improvements 126. Croak Road. Croak Road is designated as a residential collector street with an existing right-of- way width of 40 feet and pavement width of 34 feet. The developer shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way and provide public street improvements along the project frontage to achieve minimum 44 feet curb to curb with additional turn lanes as needed. Street improvements shall include, but are not limited to: removal and replacement of existing AC pavement, installation of new pavement, curb and gutter, bike lanes, minimum 8-foot wide multi -use trail, accessible ramps, landscape, irrigation, street lights and utility lateral(s) to serve the development. PW First Final Map Approval PUBLIC WORKS — TRACT 8666 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 29 of 34 116 127. Geologic Hazard Abatement District. Prior to filing of final map for Tract 8666, Developer shall annex Tract 8666 and Parcel 10 of Tract 8663 into the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD). The board of directors for the GHAD shall be the City Council and the City of Dublin. The GHAD shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of open space areas (including benches and brow ditches, maintenance roads or trails, and fencing) and water quality control ponds, and shall include a reserve for unforeseen repair of future slope stability. Developer shall be responsible for submitting all documents necessary for annexation into the GHAD, including a plan of control, which shall include an annual operating budget for buildout of the project, and the petition. Developer shall also be responsible for all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. An engineer' report shall be prepared and adopted by the GHAD Board, setting the amount of the annual assessment. The GHAD Board shall approve the assessment levy prior to or concurrently with the approval of the large lot final map by the City Council. Initial assessments against property owners shall not be lower than ultimate assessments at buildout. The CC&Rs for the project shall contain financial mechanisms, such as deed assessments, enforceable by the City to ensure the property owners are obligated to pay the costs of maintenance in the event that the GHAD is dissolved or does not have sufficient resources to perform its obligations. The CC&Rs shall also include provisions that require the property owners' association to pay the GHAD or City's attorneys' fees in the event that either enforces the Homeowner's Association's obligation to fund maintenance of the open space areas and the water quality control ponds. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. PW Tract 8666 Final Map Approval 128. Private Street and Private Property Maintenance. Any private property or private streets shall be privately owned and maintained. PW Acceptance of Improvements 129. Pandora Way. Pandora Way is designated as a minor residential street with an existing right-of-way width of 33 feet and pavement width of 32 feet. The Applicant/Developer shall dedicate 9 feet of right- of-way along the project frontage to achieve 42 feet PW Tract 8666 Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 30 of 34 117 of total right-of-way and provide public street improvements. Street improvements shall include, but are not limited to: removal of existing curb and gutter, installation of new pavement, curb and gutter, 4.5-foot wide sidewalk, accessible ramps and utility lateral(s) to serve the residential development. 130. Vehicle Parking. All on -site vehicle parking spaces shall conform to the following: a. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4" white lines set 2 feet apart in accordance with City Standards and DMC 8.76.070.A.17. b. 12"-wide concrete step -out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abut a landscaped area or planter. c. Where wheel stops are shown, individual 6' long wheel stops shall be provided within each parking space in accordance with City Standards. d. A minimum 2' radius shall be provided at curb returns and curb intersections where applicable. e. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and obstructions to vehicle door opening shall be an additional 4' in width per DMC 8.76.070.A.16. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall be unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum 2- foot vehicular overhang at front of vehicles. PW Grading Permit Issuance 131. Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and Striping Plan showing all proposed signing and striping shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 132. Right -of -Way Dedication at Adjacent Property (Tract 8197 — Jordan Ranch). Approval of the Development requires the Applicant/Developer to construct public right-of-way and make good faith efforts to acquire the necessary land title and interests from the adjoining property owner of the common area to the north. Government Code section 66462.5 ("Section 66462.5") provides that, under circumstances in which neither the City nor the Developer has the necessary property interests to complete an improvement required by the tentative map conditions, the City shall either (a) require Developer to enter into an agreement that requires the completion of the improvement at such time as it has acquired the interests or (b) PW Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 31 of 34 118 acquire the necessary interests within 120 days of filing the map or waive the condition requiring the improvement. Developer desires more certainty regarding when the improvements will be completed, and the City desires that a diligent, good -faith effort be made by the Developer to acquire the necessary interests with the agreement of the adjacent owner. Accordingly, the City agrees, upon Developer's demonstration of such diligent, good faith efforts to the satisfaction of the City Manager, to commence the process described under Section 66462.5 within 90 days of providing such evidence to the City Manager. All costs associated with acquisition shall be the obligation of Developer. PUBLIC WORKS — TRACT 8667 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 133. Geologic Hazard Abatement District. If the Developer desires to have Tract 8667 annexed into the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), the Developer shall submit a geotechnical report for review to verify the parcel is within a Geologic Hazard Area. If determination is made that the parcel is within a Geologic Hazard Area, the annexation of Parcel 8 of Tract 8663 into the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) shall be completed prior to filing of Final Map 8667. The board of directors for the GHAD shall be the City Council and the City of Dublin. The GHAD shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of open space areas (including benches and brow ditches, maintenance roads or trails, and fencing) and water quality control ponds, and shall include a reserve for unforeseen repair of future slope stability. PW Tract 8667 Final Map Approval Developer shall be responsible for submitting all documents necessary for annexation into the GHAD, including a plan of control, which shall include an annual operating budget for buildout of the project, and the petition. Developer shall also be responsible for all administrative costs associated with processing the annexation. An engineer' report shall be prepared and adopted by the GHAD Board, setting the amount of the annual assessment. The GHAD Board shall approve the assessment levy prior to or concurrently with the approval of the large lot final map by the City Council. Initial assessments against property owners shall not be lower than ultimate assessments at buildout. The CC&Rs for the Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 32 of 34 119 project shall contain financial mechanisms, such as deed assessments, enforceable by the City to ensure the property owners are obligated to pay the costs of maintenance in the event that the GHAD is dissolved or does not have sufficient resources to perform its obligations. The CC&Rs shall also include provisions that require the property owners' association to pay the GHAD or City's attorneys' fees in the event that either enforces the Homeowner's Association's obligation to fund maintenance of the open space areas and the water quality control ponds. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney to ensure compliance with this condition of approval. 134. Private Street and Private Property Maintenance. Any private property or private streets shall be privately owned and maintained. PW Acceptance of Improvements 135. Vehicle Parking. All on -site vehicle parking spaces shall conform to the following: f. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4" white lines set 2 feet apart in accordance with City Standards and DMC 8.76.070.A.17. g. 12"-wide concrete step -out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abut a landscaped area or planter. h. Where wheel stops are shown, individual 6' long wheel stops shall be provided within each parking space in accordance with City Standards. i. A minimum 2' radius shall be provided at curb returns and curb intersections where applicable. j. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and obstructions to vehicle door opening shall be an additional 4' in width per DMC 8.76.070.A.16. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall be unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum 2- foot vehicular overhang at front of vehicles. PW Grading Permit Issuance 136. Signing and Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and Striping Plan showing all proposed signing and striping shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. PW Grading Permit or Encroachment Permit Issuance 137. Central Parkway. Central Parkway is designated as a residential collector street with an existing right-of-way width of 51 feet and pavement width of 31 feet. The developer shall dedicate 13 feet of PW Tract 8667 Final Map Approval Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 33 of 34 120 right-of-way along the project frontage to achieve 64 feet of total right-of-way and provide public street improvements. Street improvements shall include, but are not limited to: removal of existing AC berm and V-ditch, installation of new pavement, curb and gutter, 8-foot wide sidewalk, accessible ramps, landscape, irrigation, street lights and utility lateral(s) to serve the residential development. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July 2024, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 34 of 34 121 Attachment 6 ExhibitA to Resolonon- Vesting Tentative Tract naps VESTING LARGE LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TRACT 8663 GH PACVEST PROPERTY CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APRIL 2024 aavoar PRoTECnory zONE (.n) uv£ PARCEL 5 PARCEL 1 GC/CO ( PARCEL7 (650.01 PABCEL10____ PARCEL 4 P/PR 28 G.aOx ac.) PUNL 8, IYOZ G - 9v PARCEL 6 P/PR PARCEL 9 GC/CO 00 600 SHALL 1',00' ABBREVIATIONS: AC. BNDY DSRSD GHAD ESMT IOD MH PUE PAE ROW SDE ACRES BOUNDARY DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT EASEMENT IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY STORM DRAIN EASEMENT MAP NOTES: 1. OWNER/APPLICANT GH PACVEST, LLC 2800 POST OAK BLVD. SUITE 5115 HOUSTON, TX 77056 CONTACT: WOOI SEE (832) 397-6506 2. ENGINEER: 3. AREA SUBJECT TO INUNDATION: 4. SUBDIVIDED AREA: 5. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 6. WATER/SEWER SYSTEM: 7. DRAINAGE: 8. GAS & ELECTRICITY: 9. TELEPHONE: 10. EXISTING ZONING: 11. EXISTING LAND USE: 12. PROPOSED LAND USE: MACKAY & SOMPS 5142 FRANKLIN DR. SUITE B PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3355 CONTACT: MARK MCCLELLAN/NICOLA TAN (925) 225-0690 NONE (PANEL 0607050002B) 192.0* ACRES 905-0001-006-03; 985-0027-002; 985-0027-005; 985-0027-004 TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) STANDARDS. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS OF COMCAST. PD'GENERAL COMMERCIAL/CAMPUS OFFICE (GC/CO) PO -OPEN SPACE (OS) PI -MEDIUM TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MH) PD-PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (P/SP) VACANT LAND PD-GENERAL COMMERCIAL/CAMPUS OFFICE (GC/CO) PD-COIM9UNITY PARK (CP) PD-OPEN SPACE (OS) PD-PARKS/PUBLIC RECREATION (P/PR) PI -MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MH) 13. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, LOCAL AGENCY APPROVAL OF THIS MAP SHALL CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED DIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL NOT UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE FREE AND COMPLETE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66436(A)(3)(A)(I). 14. PARCEL DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. 15. THE APPLICANT RESERVES THE OPTION TO PHASE THE MAPPING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF FINAL MAPS/TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS/IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS, ALL AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. 16. THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO FILE A FUTURE SMALL LOT VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ON PARCELS 7 & 8 FOR MH RESIDENTIAL USES. PLEASANTON VICINITY MAP N.T.S. LEGEND: BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE EXISTING PARCEL LINE RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE/IOD AIRPORT PROTECTION ZONE LINE BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON, IEWEFE LINE EN OEMS TRIANGULATION PUBLISHED COSL27 zone 3 GRID COORDINATES FOR THIS IS TAKEEN AS NORTHF11514E21 PARCEL PROPOSED OWNER MAINTAINEDBY PROPOSED USE PARCEL1 GH PACVEST COMM. HOA GC/CO PARCEL2 GH PACVEST COMM. HOA GC/CO PARCEL3 GH PACVEST COMM. HOA GC/CO PARCEL CITY CITY PARKS/PUBLIC RECREATION PARCEL5 CITY C. COMMUNITY PARK PARCEL6 CITY CITY PARKS/PUBLIC RECREATION PARCEL GH PACVEST HOA MH RESIDENTIAL PARCELS GH PACVEST HOA MH RESIDENTIAL PARCEL9 GH PACVEST COMM. HOA GC/CO PARCEL IO GH PACVEST HOA OS(PRIVATE STREET/SWO BASIN) PARCEL II GH PACVEST HOA GC/CO (PRIVATE STREET/SWO BASIN) SHEET INDEX: 1 COVER SHEET 2 EXISTING PARCEL OWNERSHIP & A.P.N. EXHIBIT 3 LLVTM & ANNOTATION 4 STREET SECTIONS 5 PRELIMINARY OVERALL GRADING PLAN 6 GRADING SECTIONS 7 PRELIMINARY OVERALL UTILITY PLAN 8 PRELIMINARY OVERALL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 9 OWNERSHIP & MAINTENANCE PLAN 10 EROSION CONTROL PLAN PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF. BY 6 3 PROJECT N0. 19887.0000 SHT OF to VAHEANINT1-O.E0ILIANISNS OI-E«R.NN I I ti E - i11M�'R *; '�lT,k"IRT111)IJ �* �7 , ;'�i111T?i , 1 ��: j"1fl]1 FALL LNGE GDO i 0098-003-0 ".•°. 0 y : i� J� �14. - A PN APN 142 U2 6. I .4� APN - / ,� DOC• 79-229985 1-""•»-...�.� r" 1 APN 905-0002-01-01 - 1 _ Ek CENTRAL PKYIp APN 905oao2-oz ACQUISITIONS H `, /, L_��1r�, N89-03'50',! 432.]8' BNOV LLC / UCC TONW00'` 0 NLED A3.5 8 N3]'53 08 E 25.58' BEDY L C . CREEKE�SCHOOL ". )' — � BWO OCORLEEK I —y irdr - .•7 J_�_ rm 30'52: 538. 04 65DY I "i ^/ 429.94' — _•�-_ 1 =2'8" -- '- EXISTING PUBLIC ROW — a, • L=205.715.]1PER DOCII201]-10015fi «/ i AND 00082022+16]223 • ^/ 't 'r it • .� — nlaroa7 mo>Ecrrory melavnz one • AIRPORT MN) aeoar vreo>Ecrrory IOW it // •'d'VNIP I _ 87°53'11'W 12.00BNO 0.00' d=89°3]'40" L=46.93' BND 06'49"E 92.02' 6NEV EX. PG & E EASEMENT RE-1995 I14-330 RE-1995 IM-337 EX DRAINAGE EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY Of ALAMEDA RE-3505 OR IM-240 GH PACVEST, LLC DOC.# 2017-30933 APN 985-0027-002 135.5 ± AC. GH PACVEST, LLC DOC.# 2001-029949 APN 985-0027-004 1.1 ±AC. STATE HIGHWAY 580 R=4972.48' A=3°33'15. 08 45' 8N0 N68 01'317 8.68' 13,10 GH PACVEST, LLC' DOC.# 2015-217223 APN 905-0001-006-03 49.3±AC. FREEWAY DOC.# 2001-029949 APN 985-0027-005 0 100 200 .0 SCALE: 1 "200' 8 0 PROJECT N0. 19887.0000 SHT 2 aveev�Plrv\reo-aeRALL.0s SHE, 02-.*m-* 0*C 7' DUBLIN BLVD — DEDICATION OF ROW TO VALLEY LINK WILL BE ME BY SEPARATE AND FINAL AS REWIRED RG LLEY LINK IS DETERRMMINED FALLON VILLAGE GHAD APN 985-0098-003-00 )IFUTURE 10PRE 086' 10 PRE FALLON SEE SEE R.O.W. DEDICATION ]b•20'28 E t , NOTE 1 NOT �nz> gi FUTURE PRIVATE ROADWAY / EDCC COTTONWOOD AhENDED TRACT /_______ + CREEK SCHOOL FK 335 PG 35 / COTTONWOOD CREEK PRIMARY ACCESS TO PARCEL / -8 SCHOOL TNODERKRRCOTOOECM ISITE (0L 10' PRE :STING OVERHEAD PODERLINE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED AS PART OF DUBLIN BLVD. CONSTRUCTION PARCEL 5 CP 7.22±AC. (7.22±AC.) E%. PGA E EASEMENT RE-1995 IM-330 R E-1995 IM-337 IX DRAINAGE EASEMENT GRANTED COUNT( OF ALAMEDA RE-3505 OR IN-24O ALAMED\ REGORY W St\ `�. \ JUUA A \ )- • FINED PROP WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE MA EDA ERTY AS C4P INTERNAL CIRCDui. AMESSAOADS ADDITIONAL R.0 W. DEDICATION FOR {SEE°TRACT"SW VTR), PARCEL 10 P, OS 2.28±AC. ssD (2.28±AC.) CROAK DOC# 79-229985 APN 905-0002-01-01 APN 905-0002-02 V I ro w.NVE . wD .2 z9Z,x0 -� aAO.w.SDEDICATION pBTRACT 8197 I�p J BK 329 PG 95-101 zB PARCEL 7 MH 6.48±AC. D (6.50±AC.) REST (0) mua 26 E TRACT BM 6 SW PARCEL4EET DETAILS P/PR 28.89± AC. (33.40± AC.) SLOPE EASEINT ALONG DUBLIN BOULEVARD TO BE COORDINATEAND MADE IWIER 1 INSTRUMENTNTIFPOP BOULEVARD EXTENSION EC VIA SEPARATE PCAWAY CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO PROPERTY GRADING) e''SE IB' SEE E%. CROAK ROAD PARCEL2 GC/CO EAE �mE oIQATI015 14.83±AC. BE D3D'RDW 17.43±AC.) (SEE NOTE 1)m / INTERSECTIONS TO BE FULLY SIGNALIZED PARCEL 1 GC/CO 65.38±AC. (74.41± AC.) DEDICATION OF ROW TO VALLEY LINK WILL BE MADE BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AS VALLEY LINK PROJECT PROCEEDS AND FINAL REQUIRED IS DETERMINED 31 1 J TI / REUNOUISHNENi OF ACCESS RIGHTS i0 FREEWAY 41.6.'WAIL7 WS79..1}!? WSPPITTTAS ST CROAK DOC# 79-229985 APN 905-0002-01-01 APN 905-0002-02 FUTURE 00 PARCEL 8p= MH " 6.81±AC. E%.' CROAK RCPD(7.2/11?AC.) aoR.o.w. R RD. 63 EET (WI PUBLIC ACCESS PARCEL 11 BB'GC/CQ 1.85±AC. (1.95±AC.) PARCEL6 P/PR 8.57±AC. (9.19±AC.) PARCEL 9 GC/C0 10.42±AC. (12.30±4C.) e, 10' PRE 20' ROW SEE ZOOE_IL Ja'_a03G' FUTURE DUBLIN BLVD- 86 CENTRAL PKWY CENTRAL PARKWAY PROZEC709 zwrc (Aan) POTENTIAL CONNECTION TORIGHETTI PROPERTY RIGHT ACCESS ONLY 4. g L_ o. CROAK ROAD R.O.W. PARCEL 3 GC/CO 18.38±AC. (20.16±AC.) Accsss �xwycxTaur DEDICATION OF . 70 VALLEY LINK FINAL REQUIRED Row sS DETERM xED""° STATE HIGHWAY 580 LEGEND POTENTIAL ACCESS/CIRCULATION TO PARCELS FROM LOCAL PROJECT ROADS 1. RIGHT OF AY (R.O.W.) DEDICATIONS SHMD SHALL BE MADE WITH THE OVERALL LAPSE LOT FINAL MAP 2. swlw INBITALICS/PARENT`IHiESESS ARE1CROSS LLMID USi ACRES. 0 100 200 .0 SCALE: 1'200' 9 PROJECT N0. 19887.0000 SHT 3 OF 10 F:v 0887APLN0P6-O.EP.0L01101Ki06 SHEETS \00-1LYn-. W NowmN.MW: ° 1111 ° ,1" I 111,1 \\.1. PARCEL 1 41± AO OS 3AC 138 ! I MAC ) FUTURE DUBLIN BIOS GC/CO , I PARCEL 3 GC/CO OR FALLON ORO COTTONWOOD CREEK 11-8 .002 \IB MCC C011.41000 CREEK SCHOOL PARCEL 5 CP (7.22vIC.) ITOCK /8-229985 813,0002-01-01 APN 905 PPP 02 AT111. FUTURE ROADWAY PARCEL 7 —7 MH (8 S.C.) —Cc-PARC-C-6 40- - PARCEL 4 (21.28140) P/PR - zr,rx —TAW 0:147.1;40: 1=4— =cr./ arErj • a• MEM 0, 4' MUM N FEE _MEOW EfF F"Vil 'MO'? ME;17 kEEEI II MOM ROM CROAK ROAD (FRONTAGVARCEL 8) • 73' no EZEF:071" m,rnzn,=: Mg; EMZENE E'M I T VII 51= E.+ IX I ;71.-7,17 1:1;NT '4' 84°1 44, <5 TYPICAL COINERCt STREET - 70ROW 411.10191.11V., CENTRAL PARKWAY 1(2,1191ING - 84. non FE <5 FAL. no. (NOM OF mem Buo.) • lor IMFD 40.4.1 DINFACE:611.11 01.1114 M1 1" EWE 4, 1TMIF'LEM UNE M U UM la 11E SOMME <5 FALLON ROAD (SOUTH OF DUBLIN ELV0 TO FALLON GATEWAY) 209' ROW ..,C1). FALL RDAS (WORTH Of FALLON 00100083) • 197' ROW EY 66 1011 I , I 1-71300.• <:1F, FALLON ROAD ISOUTH OF FALLOW OTATERWP - . .e'N. poem BOULEVARD (ULTI414T4 COMM.) . 204.5' AN Bourmo 111.11•41E OA TO BE EMIR. WV LIN ADIE YAM Ola (‘_). poem BOULEVARD (ULTIMATE conomon) 154. ROW DUBLIN BOULEVARD (ULTIMA-TE CONDITION) • 130'000 Kw rum mem wow( 2.8 a. Tre: commum (Km ToN T4To TINim (484 3wwwwe (0 4.155k-70: _10 ___ 5 1:4 PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: PROJECT NO 10887.0000 SHY 4 OF 10 93,8957(423,m-0El033,4308284 srysm 04-822-0o4mo. WHIN 2:1 SLOPE IS SIMILAR TRANSITION E ., REGRADED TAR AND PATH ENOS I.r!fI/JkSHOGRAMMING IS KNOWN �� ,�„ 11111�11111111►��►��rrr N____ EX LORD. CREEK EC BE DISTURBED) X VDLIN€= l BLVD ^l 1 PEDE.IAN ACCESS TO PROGRAm11NG IS REFER TO TRACTTRIM Eo66 RN PMADI GRADING EX. PANDORA' SE AINING NALL`GADES. OVERALL 4NAY ; L000ERLOTRVTR GRADING 5 FOR PEFEREACE 1 RWRPO011E 'C' u C O I ' a • BEFER TO TRACT HZ UM GRADING P. MP \DETAILED GRADING MD RETAINING WALL RADES. REFERENCE ONLY. j ti LEGEND 310 PROPOSED CONTOURS 385— EXISTING CO GRADING NTOURS ON GRADED SUPER 17.• NOTES: 1. SNAND ALL Z GXM AADIX6 VPER ALTA SDRVE>' MACKAY3. ULTIMATE TNEE TED ;xPER PRELIMINARY PRECISE PLANAND CONVEYED0. 4. ALL RUNOFF APPROPRIATELYBY CITY OF NERATED FRIA 70 ADE..KF DISC BE LOCATION ESTIMATED ROUGH EARTHWORK QUANTITIES) AREA RAW .PURR RESULTS s.ppiNG NE NOTE 1) SHRINKAGE / E%PON50N (PEE NOTE 2) CON5011W1XIX (SEE NOTE 3) CERNUL / IU.T TOTALS 1.368.500 2.580 1.366.510 BALANCE SHRINKAGEEARTHWORK NOTES. 1. SWLIPPING OF VEGETATION IS ASSUMED AT OD REMOVAL OVER ALL OF 'REGRADED E. /PA 2RSONNUMBERSARE ASSUMED TO OFFSET EACH OTHER. FUTURE INFORMATION FROM THE DESIGN LEVE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MAY INFLUENCE THIS ASSUMPT ON. 3. CONSOLIDADON IS ASSUMED AT ON OVER THE GRADED AREAS OF TNE LEGEND - NATURE PARK ACCESS ZNTEEELg o:Rae m afr174 nx.T 000015iDBE PAGR ■ M.. Nux1ENANCE(SEE SECTIONS/DETAILS ONRSHEET NATURE B 1re ACRE GRADED PADARu F. 'MAINTENANCE STORAGE AREA FOR CITY NAINTENONCE OF ACCESPARK (ACCESS TG BE FRGN Aw5c5NT PDBLTG S IDEETS SOUTH OF PARCEL T OR PARCEL 6) 0 75 150 300 SCALE: 1"=150' 1 PRWEC 9887.0000 SHi 5 DR 10 01-05-20. 1061). Long Le Fe IRO. TPLI-OVERALL SHEETS NEPAL GRAN. PL... POW CITY LIMIT ROW EX. CROAK ROAD 1ARIE PS SECTION A NI MOO/ 1.1t ERBUILD LINAGE DITO SECT ON B UTILITIES, WATER QUALITY AND OTHER IF WOULD LIIKKEµ70 UTILIZE"THTHESPACEDFOR F uRIMPROVEMENTS ASSOGIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. CITY LIMIT RON DEDICATION FOR ULT. FALLON ROAD DAYLIGHT <e sEE Nor y �` a �� ccAC0 NOTE: WMERrWOULDSLIKE TO"UTRIZEMESPACEOFONNF IMPROVVEMENTS WATER WITH THE .ELOPMENT. DRAINAGE DITCH SECTION C L' r SEE NOTE EN GENRD PAD np IF ROW vAOSGRADING WILL"`" SECTION DCONTINUE ACROSS HS 12POTENTIALKvNy FUTURE 1G VALLEY }GvnLxrr�xlT LINK DEDICATION C0 ' AD MOMS P _ T"* EX GROUND DAYLIGHT DITCH DRAINAGE SECTION E Ian EX PROUND DRAINAGE DITCH DAYLIGHT SECTION F R,N NATURE PARK P,L S SO a,0D COMP, F�MRE�D 1E2 DUBLIN BLVD. PUBLIC ROW R'W NOTE: THE i. ESMT AND 12' ACCESS RD MAY BE INCORPORATED AS P PORT. OF TOE DRIVE AISLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORDER is KEEP MAIN. ACCESS ROAD OUT OF WETLAND LONE. DUFF DEV RRARAA IN E PARCEL GCECO2 NATURPARCELRK FUTURE WALL HEIGHT VARIES (MAX. HT. 25'±) COMPACTED GRAVEL OFR DRIVE LPART PL SECTION M AR�EEDPBE P1E OTR:DETAIEEGRADING RADINGSECTIONB FOR PARCEL ARE SHOWN ON SE 0667 VIM EX GROUND P/HCH PROJECT Er GROUND RAE BNDr w"NILWa BNOY R 1. OVERBUILD cc,a R}L PARCEL 4 NATURE PARK EnnvELTBU PARK DAYLIGHT -a WETLAND TO BEPRESE PRESERVED SECTION L PARK SITE DRAINAGE WILL BE ADDRESSED IN FINAL DESIGN OF PARKOHCEL PAR ONCE PROGRAMING IS KNOWN PARK PAD ti THE NOTE: SOUTH"AFBo SECTIONS BLVD. WILL INCLUDE DETAILS OF HOW EX. w.IBBULrY ABANDONED Ac GGRADDED OVER} PL SECTION 0 NTS SECTION H 1' OVERBUILD GC/CO PrL s RETAINING WALL SECTION I PrL DAYLIGHT CPA nivnre SKr` PARCEL > rasr *E IORERTEXi10N ---- RM M-- J cn.vEL THE TRACT IEEE GNOTE: DETAILED RA - DING -- - _ EX GROUND SEOTIOSS FOE PARCEL 7 MN SITE ABE SRO. ON SECTION J ON PAS MR SW 2.___----- _-------- SECTION K E% GROUND SLOPE PER PLANS —\ AC BERM PARCEL 7 MH SITE DRAINAGE WILL BE CONTAINED AND COLLECTED WITH LANDSCAPE AREA DRAINS (FINAL DESIGN) BUILDING PAD wD-- INTERIM 2:1 SLOPE WILL BE REGRADED TO ALLOW PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AT NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF P/L ONCE PARK PROGRAMMING IS KNOWN UYS I_, SECTION N FIELD INLET AND DRAINAGE SWALE E% GROUND SECTION Q eseLL— NOTE: TIE 18' MINT. ESALL AND Az' ACCESS RD MAYPrL PORRATEDPS ATEDAWnn TEE F E PARCEL d OE RISEN CAOFA TO KEEP xAINT 6LArDCESS NATURE PARK RGCICOz ROAD OUT OF WETLAND BUFFER AREA EMU rAo COMPACTED OFEX GRAVEL EASED IF PART ) TO BE PRESERVED SECTION SECTION P DAYLIGHT 1 PRWECi N0. 9887 0000 SHi 6 OF t0 01-05-202, 10.31om Long Le ALONG DUBLIN BLVD. SEE NOTES 3 AND B FOR UTILITIES ALONG CROAK ROAD FUTURE ROADWAY Lane r 72. m TNaN LINE PARCEL 5 CP 7.22tAC. (7.22±AC.) PARCEL 4 P/PR 28.89t AC. (33.40t AC.) EXISTING OVERHEAD PONERLINE TO BE UNDERGROUNDED AS PART OF DUBLIN BLVD. CONSTRUCTION EX. CENTRAL PNm PARCEL 2 GC/C0 14.83tAC. (17.43±AC.) PARCEL 1 GC/C0 65.38±AC. (74.41± AC.) PARCEL 8 MH 6.81 tAC. (7.20tAC.) PARCEL 6 P/PR 8.57±AC. (9.19WAC.) SEE NOTES 3 AND 4 R UTILITIES ALONG CAN BLVD PARCEL 9 GC/CO 10.42tAC. (12.300AC.) SEE NOTE 5 UTILITIES ALONGIALONG DUBLIN BLVD PARCEL 3 GC/CO 18.38±AC. (20.16±AC.) PROPOSED SS LINE IN DSRSD e Q EASEMENT PER DSRSD DIRECTION PROPOSED PRIVATE SD LINE IN STRCN DRAIN EASEMENT FOR PARCEL 3 DRAINAGE t^w LEGEND SANITARY SEWER (8.' MIN) -- — STORM DRAIN (18" MIN) WATER ZONE 1 (8' MIN) - WZ1 WATER ZONE 2 (8' MIN) - WZ2 o STORM DRAIN MANHOLE • CATCH BASIN • SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 4 FIRE HYDRANT NOTES: 1. UTILITY MAIN SIZES TO BE VERIFIED WITH DSRSD AND CITY DURING FINAL DESIGN. 2. WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES TO BE CONFIRMED WITH DSRSD. 3. THE SEWER AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES PROPOSED ALONG CROAK ROAD FROM CENTRAL PARKWAY TO THE NORTH, DOWN SOUTH PAST DUBLIN BLVD EXTENSION, AND WEST TO FALLON ROAD ARE TO BE INSTALLED BY THE EAST RANCH PROJECT. THESE SEWER AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES ARE ASSUMED TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND EXISTING PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. 4. THE WATER AND JOINT TRENCH FACILITIES ALONG CROAK ROAD ARE PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED BY THIS PROJECT. 5. ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES ALONG DUBLIN BLVD EXTENSION ARE TO BE INSTALLED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROADWAY. DEPENDING ON TIMING, DUBLIN BLVD AND ASSOCIATED UTILITIES MAY BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY OR BY THIS PROJECT. 6. IF CROAK ROAD IS TO BE VACATED. BETWEEN SOUTH OF DUBLIN BLVD EXTENSION AND FALLON ROAD, THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES WILL BECOME PRIVATE IF IT ONLY SERVICES THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, IF THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES SERVICES MORE THAN THIS PROJECT/PROPERTY, THEN THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC WITHIN AN EASEMENT. 7. THE 12" SS LINE IN CROAK ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD IS INTENDED TO BE THE ULTIMATE SANITARY SEWER LINE PER DSRSD'S DIRECTION. IF THE EXISTING CROAK ROAD ROW SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD IS ABANDONED, THE 12' SS LINE WILL BE PLACED WITHIN A DSRSD EASEMENT. 8. CFO will be created for qualified improvements and maintenance of said improvements. SCALE r=zoo' > z • 4 W �> o cc CD 6 6'0 W � a > 5e 5 Uri =a � Z PROJECT NO. 19887.0000 SHT 7 OF 10 PARCEL 5 CP 7.22±AC. (7.22t4C.) NOTE: WEST HALF OF ULTIMATE CROAK RD. IS TREATED BY SWO BASIN IN FRANCIS RANCH DEVELOPMENT NOTE: EAST HALF OF ULTIMATE CROAK RD. TO BE TREATED WITH PARCEL 8 FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENT (SEE TRACT 8667 VTM-SHT 7) 06 (0 9-±AC.) --C-T-c-PAR£fL-49-2: e.—__ _ (zzslac.) __) -Jy PARCEL 4 INOTE: TREATMENT FOR ALL OF ULTIMATE CROAK `P/PR RD.SOUTH OF PARCEL 11 TO BE INCLUDED AS ITS 1 '-� 28.89± AC.OWN DMA FOR SWD TREATMENT OF PUBLIC ROW (33.40±AC.)WITHIN BIO-RETENTION SWALES ALONG PARKWAYiri -- �STRIP ON EAST 8 WEST SIDES OF ROADWAY (SEE �\\LEGEND AND SECTION) 8.57±AC. s�j PARCEL 2 W (s.lsac.) �* '% NOTE: HYDflOMODIFICATION III g ♦�.♦.,�A@\\\ (14 83�0) DETENTION ULTTIMATE CROAK RO. �p ROW TO OCCUR IN OVERSIZED p�pP�;� HM PIPE AT SOUTHERLY END ���`Z'®�� * OF CROAK RD. 4f o +� ••�,\\\ i �WREROY �!�!!�� PARCEL 1 GC/CO 65.38±AC. (74.41±AC.) * a-m-x2. ,asses wn L. PvPee,wNvPN-mLN,LLt FUTURE GBITFAL P PARCEL 9 GC/C0 10.42±AC. * (12.30±AC.) PARCEL 3 GC/CO 18.38±AC. * (20.16±AC.) LEGEND: V A BIPRETENTIIXJ AND HYDROMOOIFICATION IN PUBLIC STREET ROW * BIO-RETENTION ANDHVDROMODIFICATIgJ TREATMENT IN FUTURE GC/CO DEVELOPMENT AREAS (TO BE ADDRESSED IN DETAILWIIH FUTURE SUR( 111 STORM WATER QUALITY/NM TREATMENT TO BE ADDRESSED WITHIN MN RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANS DURING VRMI SDR (SEE TRACT 666E ANDTRACT 8667 WV VESTING TENTATNE MAPS - SHEET Y FOR FURTHER SWGM M DETAILS). L♦ BIGRETENTION IN PARKING STRIP ALONG ULTIMATE CROAK IRO. FOR TREATMENT OF PUBLIC STREET ROW. (SEE CROSS SECTION BELOW) 1. BIORETENTION SIZING TO BE BASED ON RAW. COUNTY CLEAN WATER PROGRAM, 0.3 STOMWNTEM TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MARCH 2O23. 2. RAINFALL ax°son •X ONIHR 3. MITHAVE A MINIMUM 3 INIZR INFILTRATION BATE 4. THE PRELIMINARY BASIN SIZING IS BASED ON A SIZING CRITERIA OF 10.2 INIHRII(B ININRI.O.OW Id91 ALL DEVELOPIENT AR. WILL COMPLY WITH THE 10 TRASIT CAPTURE PROVISION OF THE G PDISCR FOR GC/CO AREAS AND THE VESTING TENTATIVE TMCT MP FOR WRESIDENTIAL USES, ONCE ACTUAL USERS, BUILDING TYPES, AND SITE PUNS ARE KNOW. THESE DETAILS WILL ALSO INCLUDE PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THE PUBLIC ROADWAYS. T. STORM WATER QUALITY MD HYDROMMIFICATION TREATMENT FOR PUBLIC CROAK ROAD ULTIMATE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH BIO.RETENTION STALES AND MG PIPE DETENTION ALONG THE ROADWAY, BUILT WITHIN THE PUBLIC REIN, TO BE DETAILED WITH SUBSEQUENT DESIGN LEVEL PLANS FOR ULTIMATE CROM ROM. ° Y BEING PREPARED BY THE CITY OF DUBux S CONSULTANT. IF DUBLIN BLVD. IS BUILT BY THE APPLICANT THE SANE R120 BLVD. STORM WATER QUALITY MO HYDROMMIFICATION FOR PUBLIC DUBLIN BLVD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS CALLED FOE IN THE DUBLIN HR TREATMENT METTHODDS`"WIC BEP. STORM WATER DUALITY AND HYDROMOIFICATION FOR PUBLIC FALLON ROAD WIDENING WILL BE ADDRESSED THAN. BIO.RETENTION SOLES ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF NATIVE CUM PREAMOTEMN. GENRISM w RTYPICAL BIO-RETENTION BASIN SECTION mrs TYPICAL BIORETENTION TREATMENT WITHIN PARKING AREAS STOIAWATER TREATMENT AREA " 4414 i`Ii i`Iti' "rkug 4T KAtwr= ti. Wg 1�til Rlf Fl m PVC PERMUTED BW �aPIPE TYPICAL BIORETENTION TREATMENT WITHIN PARKWAY STRIP ULTIMATE CROAK ROAD ArQA >- i w2. a §= a, Tnw > 4 > =o (7 4w PROJECT NO. 19887.0000 MIT 8 OF 10 PARCEL 6 P/PR (R R 1 PARCEL PROPOSED OWNER PROPOSED USE MAINTAINED BY HATCH PARCELS GH PANEST GC/CO COMM. HOA PARCEL2 GH PANEST GUCO COMM. HO0 A PARCEL GH PANEST GUCO COMM. HOA PARCEL4 CITY PARKS/PUBLIC RECREATION CITY PARCEL CITY COMMUNITY PARK CITY PARCEL6 CRY PARKS/PUBLIC RECREATION CITY i/ PARCEL) GH PANEST MH RESIDENTIAL HOA PARCELS GH PANEST MH RESIDENTIAL HOA PARCELS GH PANEST GC/CO COMM. HOA PARCEL 10 GH PANEST PRIVATE STREET &SWQ HOA PARCEL 11 GH PANEST PRIVATE STREET &SWQ SCA R.O.W. CITY PUBLIC STREET PUBLIC STREET R.O.W. GH PANEST PRIVATE STREET HOA P 00 200 400 SCALE: I'A200' PROJECT N0. 19887.0000 SHT 9 OF 10 04-05-20. ,ass.. Lone a PvfIRTwwRMI-ort,"u.ORM° SHEETS \M-Or....M.DWG LEGEND 711714* O —N— 0 100 200 400 I SCALE: 1.200. NOTES: 1. CONTROL EoRFDS Y GRADING AND M SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED OFF FMRCD00 s NAAn0BTa Y CONTRACTOR/EROSION ER)LSPECIALIST OfTu SWPPP ImIg R�TITIONER TO ACCOUNT FRlOOu FIELD NTROL PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED TO ma7 CITY OF DUBLN STANDARDS Bunco s PCR(OSD), 0GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PERM7 AND WHOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONLY F THE STREETS ARE NOT PAVED PRIOR TO THE RAINY SEASON. EROSION CONTROL FACIUDES SHOWN SHALL BE ADJUSTED IF THE BASINS ARE CONSTRUCTED. 5. ALL PADS TO BE COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL PROTECTMN PRIOR TO RAINY SEASON OR IF LEFT UNTOUCHED FOR . DAYS. STRAW WATTLES PERIMETER SILT FENCE HYDROSEED (APPROXIMATE LIMITS) GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT BARRIER DRAINAGE DIRECTION PRELIMINARY HYDROSEED MIX: SEED VARIETY LBS. P R ACRE REGREEN 38 BLANDO 15 ROSE CLOVER CAL POPPY BLUE LUPINE TOTAL 75 THE EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS MALL BE MIXED MD APPLIED IN APPROXIMATELY n FOLLOWING MATERIAL LBS/AO. (SLOPE MEASURE.) SEED 75 LBS WOOD FIBER MULCH 2,000 LDS LBS FERTILIZER (20-20-10) 400 LBS WATER AS NEEDED FOR APPLICATION CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT BARRIER (BLOCK & BAG) TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT WATTLES IN OPEN AREAS 1 PROJECT NO 9887.0000 SHT 10 OF 10 Long Le PARCfLf TRACT 24 A TRACT 8663 VTM AHEN03351 M 6 6196 J EX. CENTRAL PARKWAY EX. Jf7RDAN RANCH 2I a zzq L2I )�A6:I MANDEL 10 -----� TRACT 3663 VTM TRFACT 8192 29 M 95 �_EB.�A YPORA WAY 1 Ia Is IZ -T- L _ _ I - --TRACT RM 119T 629 - J - - � V U j PARCEL 7 OF TRACT 86i,. _____ 1I ti I i AIRPORT PROi 101r - - AREA (API) LIMIT TRACT 3663 NV 0 50 100 200 SCALE: r-100' GH PACVEST LLC APN 905-0022-002-00 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 8666 GH PACVEST LLC CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MARCH 2024 OAK APN 905-ROW2-01-01 L_ 11. EXISTING LAND USE: 12. PROPOSED LAND USE: MAP NOTES: 1. OWNER/APPLICANT 2. ENGINEER: AREA SUBJECT TO INUNDATION: 4. SUBDIVIDED AREA: 5. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 6. WATER/SEWER SYSTEM: 7. DRAINAGE: 8. GAS & ELECTRICITY: 9. TELEPHONE: / 10. EXISTING ZONING: / / 8/ / / / / / 13. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, LOCAL AGENCY APPROVAL OF THIS MAP SHALL CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED DIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL NOT UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE FREE AND COMPLETE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 86438(A)(3)(A)(I). GH PACVEST, LLC 2800 POST OAK BLVD. HOUSTON, TX 77058 CONTACT: WOOI SEE (832) 397-6506 MACKAY 8 SOMPS 5142 FRANKLIN DR. SUITE B PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3355 CONTACT: MARK MCCLELLAN/ NICOLA TAN (925) 225-0690 NONE (PANEL 0607050002B) 6.5* ACRES - PARCEL 7 OF TRACT 8663 VTM 2.3* ACRES - PARCEL 10 OF TRACT 8663 VTM PORTION OF 985.0027-002-00 TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) STANDARDS. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS OF SBC/AT&T. PO -MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PD-OPEN SPACE VACANT LAND PO -MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PARCEL 7 OF TRACT 8663) PD-OPEN SPACE (PARCEL 10 OF TRACT 8663) 14. THIS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 7 OF TRACT 8663 LARGE LOT TENTATIVE MAP. 15. PARCEL DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. 16. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT. THE ELEVATION DATUM IS BASED ON EASTERN DUBLIN BENCHMARK. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED ON AERIAL FLIGHT DONE ON FROM DECEMBER 2016 BY GEOMAPS INC. 17. UTILITY SIZES AND LOCATION, STREET GRADES AND LOT DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. 18. BUILDING SETBACKS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE STAGE 2 PD AND BY FUTURE SDR. 19. ALL SEWER AND WATER MAINS ARE 8" UNLESS NOTED. ALL STORM DRAINS ARE 24. OR LESS UNLESS NOTED 0R AS DETERMINED BY FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. 20. THE APPLICANT RESERVES THE OPTION TO PHASE THE FINAL MAPPING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF FINAL MAPS/TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS/IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS, ALL AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. 21. THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SUBDIVIDE CONDOMINIUM AIR SPACE RIGHTS THROUGH FILING OF SUBSEQUENT CONDOMINIUM PLANS, WHICH MAY ALSO BE PHASED THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE (ORE). SHEET INDEX SHEET 4 7 8 DESCRIPTION COVER SHEET LOTTING PLAN/ANNOTATED MAP DETAILS AND SECTIONS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PHASING PLAN BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON, IS THE LINE BETWEEN USCBGS TRIANGULATION STATIONS 'FALLON. AND "MOUNT DIABLO TOWER". THE GRID BEARING CALCULATED FROM PUBLISHED CGS 27 ZONE 3 GRID COORDINATES FOR THIS LINE IS TAKEN AS NORTH 15°44.21" WEST. LEGEND: AC. BNDY DSRSD ESMT PUE PSE PAE ROW EVAE BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE EXISTING PARCEL LINE RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA (APA) LINE ACRES BOUNDARY DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT EASEMENT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: 111111 1 SHi OF 8 19631 P,x mu-PESIODIMMINACT 8688 1 TM 666-CWER.LAM TRACT 0024 3M 55 TRACT 8 ARCEL VTM1 AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA (ARA) LIMIT .0 11=06.00' �{ zI AMENDED TRRAH 8198 I � 74 of FOR NEW T•INTERSECTION 70 BE ACQUIRED1101VBYFROM OR CITY d � a L \ ADDITIONAL ROW DEDICATION z a --12] —- 0241 5f I PUE } .s E A 3F P 4) 10' BARBEL 4 T3PA39 M 99> I ) �r sb'-- J EXISTING PUBLIC RIGNI.OF.WAY DEDICATED PER ACCEPTED BYY INSTRUMENT 00 2029NI5]993 IIt 1 PANDORA WAY N-- / / - '�`_ N88_30'52'W 986.84' BNOY ofi6 �' �AYAAVAI136 1 63?afI S RUE —1 J TMRA 66631VTM1 2,2 RUE, P 4; a 629s SF ADDI FORTP OR WAY ERUNNING 6]C9* SF 7 3' PUE L _L �wE 66]i SF 148. z65• } 249 81025 SF 6065 3F IBz J ]]88 SF L 16' 08 51610 SF PILE, PRE, EVAE, DSRSD EASEMENTS FOR PRIVATE STREET TRACT B 63 VTM1 LAND USE SUMMARY LOT/PARCEL NUMBER IAND INF 1 THRU 25 MEDIUM -HIGH RESIDENTIAL A HOA PRIVATE STREET PARCEL (PUE. PAE, EVAE, DSRSD) B HOA LANDSCAPE PARCEL C HOA PRIVATE PARCEL FOR EVA (DSRSD) PARCEL 10 (TRACT 8663) OPEN SPACE PARCEL (HOA MAINTAINED) iv u u u u , 1 EXISTING PUBLIC STREET DEDICATION (PER DOCUMENT REFERENCED ABOVE) ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET DEDICATION WITH THIS VTM A APN OP6W3]- d-00 MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO HOA GH FOR LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE OF SRO BASINS PARCEL C MMD L 4 613ASF 17 SF 3 E NA 62088 SF 3'PUE } 19 149 —N— NOTE: THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SUBDIVIDE CONDOMINIUM AIR SPACE RIGHTS THROUGH FILING OF SUBSEQUENT CONDOMINIUM D 20 40 60 PLANS, WHICH MAY ALSO BE PHASED THROUGH DRE. SCALE: t"=ao' T LEGEND: ---- — BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE — — — EXISTING PARCEL LINE RIGHT OF WAY — — — EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA (APA) LINE AC. ACRES BNDY BOUNDARY ORE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE DSRSD DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT ESMT EASEMENT EVAE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT PAE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT PSE PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ROW RIGHT OF WAY APN 905-0002-01-01 AIRPORT AREA LIMIT PROTECTSON / / / / / / / / / / / / 4 4 PROJECT NO. 19887.0 SHT 2 OF a 12-2:-2024 IA:414„ Long Le 146m\P1N\YNN-8Em0NPL,1051 8686\z 1N 8686—TENTAIM 1Px0 N..84 BOUNDARY fBRUIxDIO I%Ai GEIGAiOA PROJECT EMMERT LINE G o PUE 1 - vu FG 42 ruI a vuF , ' Pgretem DEDICATION (PER x061 ,1015 a TJwvEL RAYS IP POE nER IG c/[ s Pul+s I —TOP OF AB TOOLED I slx _ PARKING iRAVFL UNE IA.LVEL LAN F 0 PARKING s/w 1% pggxG alw TOP Of RVATIO (-FRO) ELE x _ ELEV AT[Ox PyMT Ex PARKING �_ Ex TRAVEL LANE "E TRAVEL LANE ll F I u sum.. • AG. Pvur S. •� • A-112' p �I "T'IEv KR PUNS • • 474 • 1* ��� _ .. - oFTAt� RFGry ' ._ OFF SITE PRIVATE STREET SECTION e ma MOVE B mo ADDITIONAL PANDORA 41 9, s[[ oauTL NFAEox WAY WIDENING ,-� m t.�. fol PERFORATED �' ® NTS O NTS 11' MIN PVCPPIPE"AT Jg CLASS x G AGGREGATE SASE PAVEMENT EDGE SUBDRAIN J I/2. AG'�GREGATE BASE � s . tl� ri[ va WIDTH VARIES WAY rn vI , • 74. RICK IMY � 3" ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER (IN PUBLIC STREETS) 6" CURB & GUTTER NTS NTS Nis Pro. , wSDI . i I ze vN)AE) PUE arc r%E:oJDF PGE G j CA. 1 I e• I, I O.JS' OP OF CURB TOP F FLC 6 i OW! li env ! _}41 PARKING TRAVEL LANE j TRAVEL 100 R PARKING z% n ai sn j I _I TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE VWi I -- ® ENTRY V-GUT/[P P� b + ( 1 SEE of AIL NEREM ROAD WITH PARKING' GUiTE , DETAIL NEAEON ENTRY BROAD CONC APRON �vnnax ITCI CURB ELEVATIONGEF (TFC) PAC Vor OUNGEoUSH XEATOP OF RAMP O NTS X NTsII V p g v v/[ s IPUE, Gsgso, EXAEJ o [ o ax JPgF• aSRSG• FVAF� [ II II r�i� • I-11 1I1 / BELGw d I I_ •.w�:1—I III —I 1I[ =III=III AGGREGATE II I = =IWITHIN BASECLAESS "I =1 =1 1= — 6" VERTICAL CURB CUSSAGGRE2TF BASE FLUSHCURBCURB N0 24 INCHES OF THE CURB SHALL NOT BE NSTEEPER THAN OT EXCEED se . GUTTER PAN SLOPE SHALLGqIcIL RAMP SECTION aB V AISLE .D x is is PARKING < I 11 111 1% MV A" 1% w % cARAGF FLA ' 1 p; I 1% I MINI G1 RAGE ELq. B NTS GH PACVEST LLC VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 8668 DETAILS AND SECTIONS CRT OF DUBLIN CALIFORNIA SFELOETAi'�"L"NEREOX 26' -1=/ei'i "'v ca=d • ^.:. WIDE ALLEY WITH PARKING YE DETAIL NE % xvx10�Y CFE DETAIL NEAEON © �.11Y=�Sti Zi,,U9�5 22' WIDE ALLEY Myy GE'EGDETAIE,xE . DPP P"ILE E - E \ y ��E -101E P ipP1AC ..---'� Q�1 N FLAP / pg v CURB f301 I� rIF" AND 0,11°' OP I4M' TdPw"9 DP Pc N° GUTTER TO © NTS NTS vi[ v/[ �' ICE• WARD, Euul Dlsrwc a.GI GID E eOS I- �x Mm uN uF FLG CUR " HEREON SEE'DETAIL AIL 22' WIDE ALLEY xN 9887.0PROJECT N0. SENT 3 OF a PRIVATE ALLEY ROLLED CURB TRANSITION O NTS Nis us 113-22-2024 genlapm Long Le P:v7OV\PL0\vn.-0rsmunwvu7T e6e8N, T. 06ee-0v0L0 — MINSK 0:00VPxxox, s0rs SECS SRO BASIN P,L CO MPACTED NATURE PARK PARCEL 4 SECTION I (NATURE PARK ACCESS DETAIL) ex INTERIM 2:1 SLOPE WILL BE EGRADED TO AL. PEO ACCESS Rio CONIUNITY PROGRAMMING IS ARK S KNOW GROUND LIGHT p a D" TINSTALL 2 WAY[- A`Y STOP 335TN W 35 BARS/ STOP SIGNS 8TSTRI°PES FOR CROSS WALKS ADDITIONAL ROW DEDICATION FOR NS ',INTERSECTION TO BE AWARE) FRON EX. TRACT SIRS NOW BY APPLICANT ON CITY LEGEND - NATURE PARK ACCESS P117 1011E*uLSArO BECPEW RIrvnL O°S NE PARK • . PPOPoSEO FE°AS"ECi1A0NSEESMD FOP NATURE PARK sroP sum PANDORA WAY ' �1 J�}'r� 8' MULTI -USE TRAIL -� N .� 45 !- 0 FF459 411011111=011MallIPIrr - PAD 459.1— —No I TO REGRADED COMM7I ALLOW WNPIOCE ACCESSPROGRAMING IS NW PL LAIN LANDSCAPE MAINS TO CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM Ex BRWND SECTION A LTI- MIL-' PL SECTION B 104RETENTION BASINBOTTOM ...... AREAwu NSA SIN COxrv[EPTO STORM K. DRAIN SYST611 SECTION C PRI NEW INLET TO COLLECT — RUNOFF FROM WIDENED - - FF 460.6 -- -- PAD 459.6 PL BL F z PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION '" SWEET MAR. x PUBLIC PAD 459.2 OIS.C6 Pei P. BLDG PARCEL 4 TTRA RK8663 PIL SECTION J GRAND (NATURE PARK ACCESS DETAIL) v i j TFAg Jl I M95- Jl x 6 fin Y -mum Nu ELEV. 456.0AR. OR INS IN AR. LANDSCAPE AREAS TO _ RAlAREAS xs INCOxxECT SCAPE STOxxiO CONNECT TO STOEM MAIN SYSTEM SECTION D SECTION E SECTION F RETAIN. WALL SUBORAINS DISCHARGE )(21 00/018 REAW ""PFA ND PRIVATE 26. SECTION G PRLIVoATE w / / ATTENxs wlCAL DRAINAGE F^f CROAK APN 805-0002-01-01 /1 AR <uNIN PE WALLS ° T.DRAIN SYSTEM INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. ING SIGN 1/, 4" AINIPENA.DEPERPOF2 XST AINE i gPortefRE 1 OTA[N PPFIN6 MLL SECTION H Y 9 PROJECT NO. 19887.0 F:veav0PLN0m.-RFsmunwvuIT 8688 10 8664-ORRNNC PON.Ows +___--- AREA oPAINATYPr ;.i rHiaEAf*vr�A oRAUu�GE ��Ir 1 SS LATERAL PRIVATE) OA DRAINAGE I I TYPICAL UTILITY CONNECTION DETAIL MALE DPW 446% 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1'=40. PARCEL E TRACT 802 818 M 88 UTILITY SERVICES TO THE PARK FOR WATER AND SEWER CAN BE EXTENDED WITN FINAL DESIGN AND ONCE PARK PROMO/PING AND UTILITY NEEDS ARE KNOX, m-22-am4 ,srsRn g P.\I93B]\Pw\YTRI-RFSm0mu\TRPDT EBBS\G T6 mee-Mutt PU11090 TYPICAL DIVERSION STRUCTURE DETAIL NTS AMENDE3 TPdCf BIBB 4535 L p:k.t I .„, WETLAND DIVERSION STRUCTURE AND DISCHARGE PIPE TO EX. sEIERDETaiu6ECTION newEl) // PRESERVED4635 LJ r 4_ CONNECT NEW SS SW AT STUB LE � I L6EE TYP °(014 L THIS STRUCTURE - 1I I I I I II ,,4596 ITIueTS J , G 318G NECT iG EXIGTIXG Ui FANDORA-19AY ._ TUB LHYD30a930IF1 IU T HIGH FLOW I I� PPELL�-1�,-zL_ PRESERVED WETLAND EX 8"W T SRN EY IS" SD STUB I I I I I I I I D STRUCTURE (SEE TYP.DETAIL GTHIS SHEET) 9r' i 24' HD IHYDROADDIFMAT)ON) CH T P BBB-O-a .T\__},_Y__Y__Y__Y __Y_ -7 Y EX. GROUND TOP OF GRATE BUBBLE UP (PER FINAL DESIGN ELEV.) 101MIN. FLOWLINE TO EDGE OF WETLAND AGGREGATE WETLAND OUTFALL DETAILISECTION EX. GROUND WETLAND OUTFMI - ENERGY DISSIPATOR: Z#' OUTLET THRUST BOX WEEPHOLE MIRAPI IRON FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT SLOPE PROTECTION: FEED 1/4 TON ROCK KEYED RIVER ROCK, EMBEDDED IN }:I SLOPE ON COMPACTED CUSS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (61 TRACT 3182 ---1 ) ---7 7, ii 328 •--_—--46/.6" _616 x I B.' WATER STUB I I I IGH FLOW OUTGOING PIPE I I I I 1 I I I I I IT YY-Y --Y--Y--Y--Y—Y— Y— Y--Y 1 I I I I I EENsuirnaasic�Tox4s> ovi fir r 0 wmSCAPE AREAS ABOVE RETAINING TO STORM DV. 9 PROJECT NO. 19887.0 SHT 5 OF 8 4594. 458.3 MOHLER TRACT EI90 335 M 85 596 / ////4////1///// TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXITR B I RAR el T 329 M 95 _ �� � _ __L__ Y__Y__Y__Y__Y__Y_,• f?e ,010/0 CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT BARRIER (BLOCK & BAG) PLAN rasi SECTION TYPICAL SEDIMENT BASIN NOTES: ARr cRACwc 2. FIELD CONDITIONS MAY TIVE BHP, MAY BE REQUIREBY THE °OR/ERROSlo PLASPECIALIST N �MOiauwrFPED SWPPP DEVELOPER PRACTITIONER) ACCOUNT FOR ACTUAL FIELD PER(OSV). w GENERAL CONSTRUCRON PERMIT AND .0SE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL SUPERSEDE THIS PLAN ACCORDINGLY. THE RAINY SEASON. EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHOWN SHALL BE ADJUSIED IF THE BASINS ARE CONSTRUCTED. S. ALL PADS TO BE COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION PRIOR TO RAINY SEASON OR IF LEFT UNTOUCHED FOR 14 DAYS. TEMPORARY 6. ( MAT BE (FLEXIBLE) PIPE OR REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE. HOPE R- oETALL ERO° :ON C°NNOL nIVACC IN OII CHES auc ola. P TOR TO LEGEND STRAW WATTLESISLT FENCE GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT BARRIER DRAINAGE DIRECTION/OVERLAND RELEASE IIIIII 1 sH 6 OF 8 m-a-mszN HT Le COT BCCREEK C SCHOOLS EL E T3RAI3 MMB ouTrAVIELU2 ----♦ * I * ;: -1N wRF wriN J MALE W !FLOWS TO SO SEM j OVFRF RISER AMEN01 5 M 35 T0190 33NT COBBLE (S E DETAILPIMP) m-w,v-�-r cow ULEANOWE RD N W 1VFBSION ST 5E) (ALE - DETAIL SHEET 5, z I (SEE DAAINwE REPORT) V L NATIVE SOIL o"G OING°PIPE TRACT 9 B19T M 95 PANDORA WAY EECTS MVOTREATS„FMEN FDR Trz _ME 000 RAGEFREPORT AET LLC APN W5-0D2T-002-00 EUBBLE UP SPECIAL RISER OUTSIDE ESLWITHCOBBLE OUTFALL TO BASIN. EE BUBBLE UP RISEN DETAILBELOW STORNXATEA 3AFA3ENT AA DMA #2 J I HIGH FLOW (SEE DIVERSION i OETAIL SHEETT ei ( MASS CDixi°PIPE .TRF EAB,EEDIAL0DIL �ro A"TER L u1TLOWP LUME°BASED RFIND PERFLOW/VOLUME OF N.R.P. SAN LT ON RATE IN,HR MIN ,o4:FLOW CUB S2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER DALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 8B. Nra DMA Al DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA e1 MOI 0.3 WATER DUALITY TREATMENT FACILITY 11 B10-1ETENT1CN C.3 SWO TEATIME FACILITY LIMITS OF DRAINAGE MNADFNEOI AREAS FULL TRASH OPPTIIBF OEVICE (CONNECTOR PIPE SCREENS) COBBLESTONE FLUSH WIN FINISH ORAN 121 AROUND BUBBLE UP NoPeeeele SEE SHEET 5 FOR 0111FALL TO WETLAND _J APN 5D50-R oz-01-01 DMA IOUS AREAW(9F) AREA I(Sig) BASIN PERVIOUS RETENTION A0FAT(0F) IIOVUES AREA(SF) TREATMENT AREA REQUIRED (SF) TREATMENT AREA PROVIDED (SF) 145,822 28,500 12,500 150,622 6,025 6,067 109,000 24,000 22,000 197,600 5,504 5,600 =E3: E CALCULATIONS MEM IN TAB E HEREON ARE BASS, ON AUIIEDA COUNTY CLEAN WATER PROGRAM, C.3 STONLnvATE iEC1XIGAL GUIDANCEVNARCxA22p 2023. OF PERVIOUS AREA 4. BIORETENTIOR SOIL MIX TO 11 1N,HR INFILTRATION BATE REQUIRED5. THE TREATMENT AREA OF (0.2 BERME INm01=O.04 B BRALL BE PER 0.3 FLOW/VOLUME BASED SIZING CRITERIA WITH 81 MAXIMUM (SWING DEpT11 UNTREATED INFLOW/ ER FIRE DEIGN 1,FABRIC UILAFE C IN ROCK IVIL SNGOVEU AT TCP NOG TYPICAL BUBBLE UP RISER DETAIL 0 20 60 80 SCALE: 1 -a0 1 SHi 7 OF 8 113-22-2024 INS, Long Le 19681 PLAN Vm-RE1001,11001 866611 TN BBec-PRELIMiNOPY 5100. WAIL w0.6EMEN1 PIM.OW _ I I CENTRAL PARKWAY cRoAX APN 905-0002-002-00 o $ tl — ___ --- — r— ____ —a n PARKWAY L acEmu I pil a s ill 1g Yl Yii s / / i' EOCC COTTONWOOD CREEK SCHOOL AMENDED TRACT 8198 S M 35 I 1 TRACT s TRACT s / A 4 3, Ie p )6 I r/i °A cRoAX °I APN 905-0002-001-01 / II 1 7 ev TRACT t + t++},tt++Jtt+tt+t+t + + t t + + t+tt+tt t + + t +++t++tt t + + + + + PARCEL 8667 p Lg L,., „, ,,,,. + + + + + + t + + + + + + + t + + + +, T + + t + +r + + + + + + PHASE 2 / 4/ AI/ 4 A , t}+ +t t t + + t+ ++tt}� TRACT 8666 F + —# + + + t + + + t t t + t + t + + + + - t t t t , /, t+ t+ + t + ++t++++ti + PARCEL 7 I I + + t} + ++ + + + ++ t + + AAi +++t ++ PHASE 1 �t+�++ tt t}+++}+ __L++++++_ I + + +++++A+-1-+++++ I+ I + + + -I- + + + + ± + / ' A I Wa rA r ,,-- , / i , Arm? ,,,, o 1)11 GH PACVEST LLC VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 8868 PHASING PLAN CRT OF DUBLIN CALIFORNIA , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , 'V' - ' PARCEL 10 - a- -,- -,,,- A,- ...,- -s.ey „ , , . V TRAMe vYIN, , _� a �._..='� LIC APN 905A-0027-002-00 CVEST /— / / \ \ / / / // ,py ����PAreOEL I 0.��0�� 1 TRACT���®®��������®���� ii / / / \ / / \ / / LEGEND GH 5-0001-PACVE5T 06 �I APN 905-0001-O0G-03 // / Vti+'+'+-1 PHASE E 2 \\ / rI `G "2ASIN'PNASE""D I / / 0 20 40 80 PROJECT N0. 19887.0 SIT 8 OF e scuE: 1 =ao r43-22-2024 12,31. Long Le P: 19887 PLN\mN—.11.11w\m.C18686 0IN 8666-PHASE PUX.D e APN 905C ACI2-01-01 / / / // / (// / / / / / / / /j CROAK APN WS-0002-02 FUTURE CENTRAL PARKWAY I6 4 1-11 ,/ V IL i cum �II.�IIITm_ 8OF RAC I I I I rPBIVA1rE dTREET 866 LL_M6LIC ACCESS, EVA, UTILITY EASEMENT) 11 IPA T356 WM/ APN W5A661IHGP T- 6-03 AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA (APA) LIMIT TRACT 8663 VW, \ \ TRACT 8663 VTM/ RIGHfITI MILTONROh GLORR ET AL APN O 0 50 100 200 SCALE: 1,100' VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 8667 GH PACVEST LLC CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2024 MAP NOTES: 1. OWNER/APPLICANT GH PACVEST, LLC 2800 POST OAK BLVD. HOUSTON, TX 77056 CONTACT: WOOI SEE (832) 397-6506 2. ENGINEER: 3. AREA SUBJECT TO INUNDATION: NONE (PANEL 0607050002B) 4. SUBDIVIDED AREA: MACKAY 8 SUMPS 5142 FRANKLIN DR. SUITE B PLEASANTON, CA 94588-3355 CONTACT: MARK MCCLELLAN/ NICOLA TAN (925) 225-0690 7.166 ACRES - PARCEL 8 OF TRACT 8663 VIM 1.9± ACRES - PARCEL 11 OF TRACT 8663 VTM 5. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: PORTION OF 905.0001-006-03 6. WATER/SEWER SYSTEM: DRAINAGE: 8. GAS & ELECTRICITY: 9. TELEPHONE: 10. EXISTING ZONING: 11. EXISTING LAND USE: 12. PROPOSED LAND USE: TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT (DSRSD) STANDARDS. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH STANDARDS OF SBC/AT&T. PD-MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PD-GENERAL COMMERCIAL/CPMPUS OFFICE VACANT LAND PLEASANTON VICINITY MAP N.T.S. PD-MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PARCEL 0 OF TRACT 8663) PD-GENERAL COMMERCIAL/CAMPUS OFFICE (PARCEL 11 OF TRACT 8663) 13. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, LOCAL AGENCY APPROVAL OF THIS MAP SHALL CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED DIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL NOT UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE FREE AND COMPLETE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 86438(A)(3)(A)(I). 14. THIS VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 8 OF TRACT 8663 LARGE LOT TENTATIVE MAP. 15. PARCEL DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. 16. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT. THE ELEVATION DATUM IS BASED ON EASTERN DUBLIN BENCHMARK. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED ON AERIAL FLIGHT DONE ON FROM DECEMBER 2016 BY GEOMAPS INC. 17. UTILITY SIZES AND LOCATION, STREET GRADES AND LOT DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. 18. BUILDING SETBACKS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE STAGE 2 PD AND BY FUTURE SDR. 19. ALL SEWER AND WATER MAINS ARE 8" UNLESS NOTED. ALL STORM DRAINS ARE 24. OR LESS UNLESS NOTED 0R AS DETERMINED BY FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN. 20. THE APPLICANT RESERVES THE OPTION TO PHASE THE FINAL MAPPING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IN VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF FINAL MAPS/TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS/IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS, ALL AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. 21. THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SUBDIVIDE CONDOMINIUM AIR SPACE RIGHTS THROUGH FILING OF SUBSEQUENT CONDOMINIUM PLANS, WHICH MAY ALSO BE PHASED THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE (ORE). SHEET INDEX SHEET 2 3 6 8 DESCRIPTION COVER SHEET LOTTING PLAN/ANNOTATED MAP DETAILS AND SECTIONS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PHASING PLAN BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON, IS THE LINE BETWEEN USCBGS TRIANGULATION STATIONS 'FALLON. AND "MOUNT DIABLO TOWER". THE GRID BEARING CALCULATED FROM PUBLISHED CGS 27 ZONE 3 GRID COORDINATES FOR THIS LINE IS TAKEN AS NORTH 15°44.21" WEST. LEGEND: AC. BNDY DSRSD ESMT PUE PSE PAE ROW EVAE BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE EXISTING PARCEL LINE RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA (APA) LINE ACRES BOUNDARY DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT EASEMENT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: PROJECT NO. 19887.0 SHT OF 6 P:v9887v/N\m8-PMEM3L8±CT 8117v m 8217-CMP 1 ED PARCE<L1i6 OF COORDINATET TO rwC06563 . BE INCLUDED ACENT PR OPERTY IN TRACT 8667 OEE VEOPM i FUTURE CENTRAL PARKWAY 09, 989 °03'50"W 032. ]B' BNDY CE TRIL P 3"3sCAT[di�\ x / / / / / / / / / / / AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA 1APA1 LIMIT / / / / / / / .— / _— F✓/ / / / / / 1/ / / 44: • / / / / / / 7 837°53'08° / 25.58' BND 00 19 FAR. SF 4447 ',-'/ ./ L 26' N 1 CROAK APN 905 0002-02 7379: s dI M FL B F py~ 50 F nL n— PAE, EVAE 342 SF PUE 2 35159 SF :Br ]Ni200 eF 3' PUE BMW N88°415]'N' S83.5d' BNNDY RUE, EERNEEASEMENTS 387259 SE E MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO HOP FOR LOIN•TERM MAINTENANCE OF SWO BASINS APNGH PAVED. LLC S05-0001- 6-03 m 622o SF 110M9EL5-1 SF 501 19E E FOR PRIVATE STREET 5R310 SF fi PARCEL SF PUE "I 561100 sr 100' 6659t SF I 114 RI pl 66598 SF 1e' 010201 SF PAR.. II RACT8563 VTM L )23 r i J — II L_�J NOTE: RIGHETTI MILTON R k GLORA ET AL ARM 1105-0001-005-02 LAND USE SUMMARY LOT/PARCEL NUMBER I AND IISF 1 THRU 21 MEDIUM —HIGH RESIDENTIAL A HOA PRIVATE STREET PARCEL (PUE, PAE, EVAE, DSRSD) B AND C HOA LANDSCAPE PARCEL PARCEL 11 (TRACT 8663 VTM) GC/CO PARCEL (HOW MAINTAINED) N( u u u u u y PUBLIC STREET DEDICATION D HOA PRIVATE PARCEL/FIRE ACCESS (PAE, EVAE) AIRPORT PROTECTI0X MA IAPA1 LIMIT THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SUBDIVIDE CONDOMINIUM AIR SPACE RIGHTS THROUGH FILING OF SUBSEQUENT CONDOMINIUM PLANS, WHICH MAY ALSO BE PHASED THROUGH DRE. 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"=40' LEGEND: -•-- BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE EXISTING PARCEL LINE RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LINE AIRPORT PROTECTION AREA (APA) LINE AC. ACRES BNDY BOUNDARY DSRSD DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT ESMT EASEMENT EVAE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT PAE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT PSE PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ROW RIGHT OF WAY 6 PROJECT NO. 19887.0 SHT 2 OF B 02-22-2029 1o.169m Moo- M*.Nn 10 05v\PIN\m.-RFsmunw\mwr 8661,101001-1ENr lN6 rwn WPM. CURB AND PROJECT LINE 61 HANDRAIL F, GA RINNOFNr F,L HANDRAIL = eLoc PUE Pe£ EVAE Lam, , DfL /c °' ° BLOC I ROB PDX 6' °' PAE;EYAE, BBA6x ! i a , F/c I GUTTER 91a• AFT 'NEZ: sIn v � UE SIx _ -.. TRAVEL .4 TLuvFL UM I �.�. LIB Pu _. RETAINING "ems PFR ALMS) Y ivUE MKT TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LONE A" s �s PANK1 "IN ax RUE = SLOP O. TOR of CURB r(TC)ELEV CUE TOP of ROLLED CURB ELEVATION ,TAcI - Ac ATION Rc) Pvxr A- . AVM R . a R-,Iz• A r SOP vcre rlAns� Ra.6• _ PER ANs . RETAINING OFF 74 WALL VARIES DR PLANS) DETAIL S. HERE " -SITE PRIVATE STREET SECTION EON' TAIL NDAEON ENTRY ROAD Qiis m ti� f kig �.';�.,�' !; 3' '�"s O NTS O CLASS AGGREGATEB 6E PAVEMENT 12. MN PVC PIPE EDGE SUBDRAIN T 1/2' CLASAGGREGATE 2 BABE .14£ 0/ P ,' (PUE, PAF, 00A00, FYAF) l' R.1 & e e tl 3" ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER (IN PUBLIC STREETS) 6" CURB & GUTTER NTS NTS NTS (RUE, PRE, ,,"DODO, IVE Re oR%[ ALSLE /C F/0 a. 5` OE CURB fi gp pig Ni 11:b g ii, AB x xl� UE B P RNIARKINO - " " - - __ - _- - _..Tb•.•='ti.� zx X - ROLED SEE sEFLOFTAIL"HEREON 22' WIDE ALLEY SEE DETAIL HEREON v-GUTTER SEE DETAIL HEREON ENTRY ROADWITHPARKING AT '"°" ` IT ,SUTTER`ONLINE TOP OF RAMP ROUNDED ® NTS © S IIII �N = _ • RSR PLO, � ft. rc i o se.s (WE, PRE, OSAeB, FV1F1 vi P/L 00.s 0600T OE 000 • • Ij �� . .-'3w. �I y _I. �I = BELOW • -_ •�>Je. III=III —III III IPUE, PPE, EYAE, WA6BI 6TAN PER PUN BI/cBF 26 DRIVE LE /c AISLE0. - I2— AccREw 1 11-1 � � � — I �I IeI— E !_E III=1=1 1— 6" VERTICAL CURB ACLASS 2 GGREGATE BASE FLUSH CURB NOTE: OWDTROAD NUTRINs"24 TE XOTFE%CEEOABt.a CURB fi0RET8 O A SU FACES OF NUOLLY ADJACENT INCHES OF THECURBSHALL NOT BE PEA THAN 5.05. GUTTER PAN SLOPE SHALL RAMP SECTION /O 36 DRIVE LE F/O ""0/L AISLE N �' ,6 " ,5 / /` zx P.axG sI: POE GAGE FLA B: °"""1N0 i I 668E NTS NTS NTS GH PACVEST LLC VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 8667 DETAILS AND SECTIONS CRT OF DUBLIN CALIFORNIA S i "IL REELED A 26' HEREON WIDE 6' VERTICAL SEEvDETAILLHEREM ALLEY WITH CURB PARKING 26' vQITTER SEE DETA IL NEADON WIDE ALLEY WITH PARKING .NTS URB ADLBEFA e •. i AV' ,Vp1E A i PPL i~1}ti`} VQ1 v� GO '�..L, 1 CURB Ifl f p.l a. AND NP DpEfI 0 w"G PG N' GUTTER TO © NTS ® P/ P/L n TUE P 0AE, P/L P/L as' (PNE, PRE, 06060, EYAE) /° RR'DRIVE LE oRcl AISLE /c DRIVE AISLE „ D fill, a' I AC 1 0, PARKING A. SR N ROLLED CURB6 DET L HEREON 22' �7 VERTICAL CURB DET IL HEREON WIDE ALLEY WITH PARKING �-- ROLLED CURB BEE DETAIL HEREON 26' ® ems,- r�r- -r�..-:V� WIDE ALLEY WITH -..G L S. VERTICAL CURBSEE BEE DETAIL HEREON PARKING PROJECT NO. 19887.0 s"T 3 OF B PRIVATE ALLEY ROLLED CURBfiTRANSITION NTS NTS NTS /0007\PLx\YPN«ES0ENTX,AACT 062,\11. 0627-0E,NL6 - 611.28N6, 0O0"E0600. S70FE1 SECII PAL COMPACTED GRAVEL PIL c COMPACTED AVEL SECTION I (NATURE PARK ACCESS DETAIL) NATURE PARK PARCEL 6 OVERBUILD EX SECTION J GROUND (NATURE PARK ACCESS DETAIL) LEGEND • NATURE PARK ACCESS PAAOPCSED CURB CUi AND ACCESS PoIxI FDA XANAE PARK rvTErvANCE1DETAIL6 TO WA PEA FTxAL DF6IDx) PROPOSED DSAETENACTIDNCA) NACCESS ROAD FOR NATURE PARK PR)N ♦i:.m.amiigiiiENEWog,imm — I SEE TRACT 6665 LURK FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESS 70 NATURE PARK PARCEL 6 LwoSGARE AREA DRAINS TO COLLEC7 DRAINAGE ABOVEAETAININS WALLS P,L ss• CR6UC MAD' ROAN RD MN REMOVE EX. AC BERM SECTION A 000 EXISTING EXISTING BI E TRAVEL IF' TRAVEL SECTION B ND CATION LT SE TRAIL 6' PSE PAD CENTRAL PARKIYA PROPOSED C PROMCSE TRACT BAITIIRPANECi TI CCVTRE 7:10AVE A(CURIA LAMSCAPE, SIDEWALK) SECTION C ROW SECTION D BIORETENTION BASIN VARIES BLDG SECTION E PRIVATE LANDSCAPE AREA Mr"' TO C«LECT DRAINASE SECTION F °'SURFACE PORTING FIRE sr: APPARATUS Bee SECTION G AL °ID L PSEVARlEs S MIN 2% EK DAWND SLOPE PER PUN AC BERM DITCHAGE WALL HEIGHT VARIES MD INLET AND DRAINAGE swuE SECTION H IIIIII 1 EN 4 OF 8 r b a METWATER S n. ER MP) E SS LATERAL (=vP) �J, I � I 111 AREA MAIN MP,I PRIVATE —� riiiAiErRr °xuxncE Iti- c TYPICAL UTILITY CONNECTION DETAIL yF � -4A11010 TYPICAL DIVERS ON STRUCTURE DETAIL NTS °APICES METER 2.10 YEAR STORM rots • 'DIVERSION EEATVP STRUCTURE ETA L THIS SHEET) 0 20 CO 80 SCALE: T ao 1 SN 5 OF e P: MB, Psx m.-RESIDEN vuuT 8,5 m ecswmirc PM.. 70. 0: Ri 4 .---\ v y � `-- ixos�� ��, ai:»i:5:::�>::>:;:iS>:::2�i::;�`>?s. , ��sSrr/i aSe� APN SO5'20 2-01-01 TYPICAL SEDIMENT BASIN NOTES: logrzna Ia. IS BASED OFF OF PRELIMINARY GRADING AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE 2. FIELD CONDITIONS MAT REQUIRED. THIS MODIFIED rOR/ERo SPECIALIST(QUALIFIEDSwvvv DEVELOPER OR PRACTmoNER)TTO ACCOUNT FOR ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. 3 THIS EROSION CONTROL PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED TO MEET CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS ONLY vE E("D), WTi CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND WHOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL SUPERSEDE THIS P. ACCORDINGLY. 4. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS. IF CONSTRU THE SHALL BE ADJUSTED IF THE BASINS SHOWN CO STR'UCT N END ION CONTROL F LTIEs SHOWN 5. 7%2,11 =911).1.17sH EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION PRIOR TO RAINY SEASON OR IF TEMPORARY 6. PPE Ec USEDIFOR EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE HDPE (FLEXIBLE) PPE OR REINFORCEDPO 7. T0TALL YCREEK CONTROL DN N 0DCHES/SWALES PRIOR TO CONCRETE DTCH AND 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"40' LEGEND STRAW WATTLE:/SILT FENCE GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT BARRIER DRAINAGE DIRECTION/OVERLAND RELEASE IIIIII 1 SH 6 OF 8 OF NAGE TO MAIN EAST HALF xBUCURB CUTS CEET RI. SWO MALES (SEE CURB CUT Wr COBBLE DETAIL THIS SHEET) RO APN A0500A0EK -01-01 —N- 0 20 40 80 / / / % / / / / (SEE TYPTGALEDETAILBSHEEI 5) SEE OUTLET DETAIL THIS SHEET SD 'OUTLET AT MADE WITH COBBLE / / / / �O / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / F7 DMA Al 0220022E MANAGEMENT AREA AI .B WATER OUALITY TREATMEIR FACILITY wl ,:"$ 010 RETENTIOU C.0 Sx0 TRFATMENT FACILITY LIMITS OF DRAINAGE MAG.E.T AREAS FP Flap LINE DMA #2 FULL TRASH CAPTURE DEVICE (CONNECTOR PIPE SCREENS) PION FLOW LINE DETENTIONPIPEF[cnrl xo.Es:HCALCUUTIONS SHOWN IN TABL.FREON Aflf BASED ON ALAYEDA COUNTY CLEAN WATER PROS , 2. EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA • I. OF PERVIOUS AREA Ix/HM 5 INIHR INFILTRATION RATE 5. THE TREATMENT AREA REQUIRED IS DASH: ON A SIZING GAITER. OF (0.E 1.18/(5 INI11.0.09 6 SHALL BE PER C.S FLOW/VOLUME vsED SIZING CRITERIA WITH INVINUM POICING DEPTH FUTURE CENTRAL PARKWAY DIVERSION SEE /00. DETAIL SHEET 5( SD OUTLET Ai GRADE WITH COBBLE (SEE OUTLET DETAIL THIS SHEET( WIDENINGTOBE DUALITY EEAASTT RIT ANCH 512eAL 0 SYSTEM IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF) PERVIOUS AREA (SF) NT(SF IN (SD) AP. (SD) V AREA(SF) REQUIRED (SF) PROVIDED (SF) 1 016,930 14,950 12,500 6,900 94,150 653 1,400 9 19,000 5,100 1,000 24,100 10,610 Tea 1,000 616 DVETLOW RISER* TIT 5ERFORATSO 1wAMOR. 68, I-- 3:111 w i_W PLAN VIEW AT -GRADE PIPE OUTFALL WITH COBBLE DETAIL NTS AT FINASHNGoDEFOR TYPICAL BI0-RETENTION BASIN SECTION A -A NTS gni AT FINISH GRADE RAREA/SPECIAL SOIL TO MATCH LIMITSOFNEDED DEPTH SIZING3METHODOLOGY OF w mII N WITH LixrP PEPTOA?ION SESPECIEufanONS, SECT)ON B-B BOA �e CURB T CUTTER WI CUT-OUT ® e DEEPENED CUB ALONG CURB 0I011ETENr10N SWALE HEED B IER FABRIC TYPICAL CURB CUT WITH COBBLE DETAIL NTS 810RETENTION SYIALE SECTION C-C NTS IIIIII uO 1 SH 7 OF B P. 1R667 FIN vnu-PFSIDENI,RP.CT 8661/7 Tu 8661-PRFumINAPr STOPu WATER N.G.. PUKE. EOCC OOD CREEK SCHOOL AMENISM35 TnT5 8198 CENTRAL PAREIAT Tess n ssi PANDORA war + + + rF tF +++11- +T+TtT++1Ttl+++ t t T iFAs M s5i f,+ ++ r .. f _Fr } + + H + i+ �i + + TRACT 8666 F + + �+ + t +�+++ +ter � + +++ +1 + +� +i t i+ +I PARCEL 7 ,+ + t t+++ �r+�+ +++1 PHASE 1 ++ ++ ++ ++i +t ++ +t++++ -+ + + + + + + T T T T + - + - +f++.+ ++++++++ i++1++++ 11 +-+-+-4--+-----H-+-+- +++++++5��11- �++t+++++++++++++++ .y v v v v v v v _ v v v v v v 2/ v V-O-vim Sm..TT _ 44'--'6-u-�,--`��Y-Y— �f v macr 6662 vnA„� i 4 LIE APN 905-002)T-002-00 CENTRAL PAR811AT _`� / /f APN 905-0002-001-01 / / h TRACT 86672 PARCEL 8 „, Ay, PHASE 2 i i PARCEL 6g / cRoAK APN 905-0002-002-00 %/A PHASE I PHASE 2 awo an91msE 1 PRIVATE aI :SNTREET PE P 66 PAC"EST LLC APN 905-0001-006-05 0 40 80 160 SCALE: 1 -80 iO. 1 SHi 8 OF 8 P..887 PHA mu—PESmDITX,Prc1868.0 IN 8667—PHASE PUX.6W6 Attachment 7 ORDINANCE NO. XX — 24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND GH PACVEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RELATED TO THE DUBLIN FALLON 580 PROJECT (PLPA-2023-00033) (APNs 985-0027-002-00, 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-004-00, 985-0027-005-00) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. A request has been made by GH PacVest LLC to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the property known as the Dublin Fallon 580 Project site, which includes properties identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 985-0027-002-00, 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-004-00, and 985-0027-005-00, an approximately 192-acre site. B. The Property Owner, GH PacVest LLC, is requesting approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, an amendment to the existing Planned Development (PD) Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan, approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential use, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667, and a Development Agreement for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. The proposed project would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use designation and convert 42.6 acres designated Open Space to Parks/Public-Recreation, establish development standards for the future development of 238 residential units and approximately 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/campus office use. The 192-acre site would be subdivided into 11 parcels. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Dublin Fallon 580 Project." C. The Project site is approximately 192 acres and is located east of Fallon Road, north of I- 580, and along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. D. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an Addendum for the Project, which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. Prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs." E. The proposed Development Agreement is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A. F. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement on June 11, 2024, for which public notice was given by law. G. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Dublin Fallon 580 Project including the Development Agreement by Resolution No. 24-05. H. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on July 16, 2024 for which public notice was given as provided by law. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 1 of 3 148 I. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing. SECTION 2: FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin General Plan; (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (d) the Dublin Fallon 580 Addendum; (e) the Staff Report; (f) information in the entire record of proceeding for the Project, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: A. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, and in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the Development Agreement incorporates the objectives policies, general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan and does not amend or modify them; and (b) the Project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services. B. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use district. C. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in Resolution No. xx-24, amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on July 16, 2024. D. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the Developer's proposed Project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project Approvals and any Conditions of Approval. E. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future project approvals. F. The Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, and the obligations of the Applicant. The Development Agreement contains an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs. SECTION 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it. Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 2 of 3 149 SECTION 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED this t" day of 2024, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 3 of 3 150 Attachment 8 Exhibit A to Ordinance - Development Agreement RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Dublin ioo Civic Plaza Dublin, CA Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND GH PACVEST, LLC FOR THE DUBLIN FALLON 0 PROJECT APNs: o-ooi-oo -o , -002 -02, -002 -0 , and -002 -0 151 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement" or this "Development Agreement") is made and entered into for reference purposes on this day of , 202 , by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), and GH PacVest, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (hereafter "Developer") pursuant to the authority of §§ et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter . . City and Developer are, from time -to -time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a "Party," and are collectively referred to as "Parties." RECITALS A. California Government Code Sections et seq. ("Development Agreement Statute") and Chapter . of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter . ") authorize the City to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. B. Developer owns certain real property (the "Property") consisting of approximately 1 2 acres of land, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, Legal Description of Property, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. C. Developer has applied for, and City has approved, various land use approvals in connection with a project consisting of up to 2 residential units and up to ,2 , o square feet of commercial/office development (the "Project"), including, without limitation, amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Resolution No. ___-2 ), an amendment to Planned Development Zoning Ordinance No. 2-0 for Fallon Village and a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan for the Dublin Fallon o Project (Ord. No. ___-2 adopted by the City Council on _, 202 ), Vesting Tentative Tract Maps , , and for the Dublin Fallon o Project (Resolution No. ___-2 adopted on _, 202 ), and this Agreement (approved by the Development Agreement ("DA") Approving Ordinance (defined below)) (collectively the "Project Approvals"). D. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly, and proper development of the Project. E. The City, in collaboration with the City of Livermore, is the lead agency that desires to construct a project generally described as the roadway extension of Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to the Dublin city limits, 2 152 continuing easterly through unincorporated Alameda County and connecting to North Canyons Parkway within the City of Livermore, commonly referred to as the proposed Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension Project ("Dublin Boulevard Extension"). On September , 201 , the City Council adopted Ordinance No. io-i to establish Right -of -Way Lines for Dublin Boulevard between Fallon Road and the Eastern City Limit ("Precise Plan"). F. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein. G. The development of the Property and the Project has been evaluated in three environmental impact reports ("EIR") certified by the City: (1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 110 0 ; (2) East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 20010 211 ); and ( ) Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 200 0 2010) (collectively, "Prior EIRs"). The Prior EIRs specifically addressed the General Plan, Specific Plan and Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning and Development Plan for the Project. An Initial Study was prepared for the amendment to Planned Development Zoning Ordinance No. 2- o Stage 1 Development Plan; Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan; Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps , and ; and this Development Agreement to determine whether these approvals will result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in these prior EIRs or any other standard requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met (Public Resources Code Section 211 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 1 1 2 and 1 1 ). The Initial Study determined that these approvals did not trigger any of the CEQA standards requiring further environmental review. An Addendum was prepared for these approvals explaining the basis for finding no further review is required under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1 1 (e). The City Council considered and approved the findings in the Addendum (Reso. No. ___-2 adopted on _, 202 ) prior to approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, the amendment to Planned Development Zoning Ordinance No. 2-0 Stage 1 Development Plan; Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan; Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps , , and ; and this Development Agreement. H. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to 153 Government Code Section and Chapter . . As required by Government Code Section . , City has found that the provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards, and land use designations specified in City's General Plan. I. On June 11, 202 , the City of Dublin Planning Commission, the initial hearing body for purposes of Development Agreement review, recommended approval of this Development Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. 2 -0 . J. On , 202 , the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. __-2 approving this Development Agreement (the "DA Approving Ordinance"). The DA Approving Ordinance took effect on 202 . NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. -, 2. Interest of Developer. Developer has a legal interest in the Property in that it is the owner of the Property. Relationship of City and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and Developer and that neither City nor Developer is an agent of the other. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. Effective Date and Term .1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement ("Effective Date") is the date upon which the DA Approving Ordinance takes effect. .2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for 10 (ten) years following the City Council's 154 acceptance of the Dublin Boulevard Extension project as constructed to its ultimate width and length as described in the City's certified EIR for the Dublin Boulevard Extension, as more particularly described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein, unless said term is otherwise extended or terminated as provided in this Agreement (as so extended or terminated, the "Term"). In the event that any third -party lawsuit is filed challenging the City's issuance of the Project Approvals or its compliance with CEQA, the Term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a duration equal to the time from the filing of such lawsuit to the entry of a final order dismissing or otherwise finally terminating such lawsuit, which duration shall include any appeals ("Litigation Extension"). If required by one of the parties, the other party shall enter into a Clarification pursuant to Section 1 . below memorializing the length of such Litigation Extension. This Agreement shall terminate with respect to any for sale residential lot and such lot shall be released and no longer subject to this Agreement, without the execution or recordation of any further document, when a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the building(s) on such lot. . Optional Extension. Prior to the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement, as provided in Section .2, Developer may extend the Term of the Development Agreement. To do so, Developer shall give City written notice at least ninety ( o) days prior to the termination date of the Development Agreement. At the time Developer provides such notice, Developer shall make a payment to City in the amount of $2 0,000 (adjusted for inflation from the Effective Date using the CPI-U, San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose Area) for each year of extension requested under this provision. Upon receipt of the notice and the contribution, the City Manager shall approve the extension and shall notify the Developer in writing that the Term of the Development Agreement has been automatically extended for an additional time period equal to the time period requested by Developer under this provision, commencing on the date the Development Agreement would otherwise have terminated; provided Developer may exercise its option to extend the Development Agreement no more than five ( ) times, for a maximum total Term of the Development Agreement of fifteen (1 ) years (plus any extensions pursuant to Sections .2 or . hereof). Provided there is an extension period remaining, Developer may request the extension for multiple years and provide the payment due for each year's extension. Each extension shall apply to the entire Property upon payment of one $2 0,000 (as adjusted in accordance with this Section . ) per year extension payment, even if the Property is owned by multiple Developers at that time. 155 . Term of Project Approvals. The term of any Project Approvals (as defined in Recital C) for the Property or any portion thereof, specifically including without limitation the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps , , and , shall be extended automatically for the Term of this Agreement. . .i Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term, the term of any Project Approval and the vesting period for any final subdivision map approved as a Project Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval. Vested Rights/Use of the Property/Applicable Law/Processing .i Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of (i) this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement, and (ii) the City's ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the development, construction, subdivision, occupancy and use of the Project and the Property including, without limitation, the General Plan, the Dublin Municipal Code, and the Specific Plan, the permitted uses of the Property, density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, and the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes that are in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, "Applicable Law"). In exercising its discretion when acting upon subsequent project approvals, City shall apply the Applicable Law as the controlling body of law. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, any amendment to the Project Approvals shall not become part of the law Developer is vested into under this Agreement unless an additional amendment of this Agreement is entered into between Developer and City in accordance with this Agreement. In the event that such amendments to the Project Approvals are sought for any distinct portion of the Property or Project, such amendments shall not require amendment of this Agreement with respect to any other portion of the Property or Project, except to the extent set forth in such amendment. .2 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. The City shall not apply to the Project any development impact fee or any application, processing, or inspection fee (collectively, "Fees") that the City first enacts after the Effective Date. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, City and Developer agree that this Agreement does not limit the City's discretion to impose or require (a) payment 156 of any fees in connection with the issuance of any subsequent project approvals as necessary for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, (b) dedication of any land, or (c) construction of any public improvement or facilities (collectively "Exactions"). Except as specifically provided herein, nothing in this Agreement shall limit the City's ability to impose existing development impact Fees at rates that are increased beyond the amounts in effect on the Effective Date or limit Developer's ability to challenge any such increases under state or local law. . Construction Codes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section .1 above, to the extent Applicable Law includes requirements under the state or locally adopted building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire codes (collectively the "Codes"), the Codes included shall be those in force and effect at the time Developer submits its application for the relevant building, grading, or other construction permits to City. In the event of a conflict between such Codes and the Project Approvals, the Project Approvals shall, to the maximum extent allowed by law, prevail. For construction of public infrastructure, the Codes applicable to such construction shall be those in force and effect at the time of execution of an improvement agreement between City and Developer pursuant to Chapter .1 of the Dublin Municipal Code. . New Rules and Regulations. During the Term of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force and effect on the Effective Date only to the extent they are not in conflict with the vested rights granted by the Applicable Law, the Project Approvals, or this Agreement. In addition to any other conflicts that may occur, each of the following new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, or official policies shall be considered a per se conflict with the Applicable Law: . .1 Any application or requirement of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies that would (i) cause or impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property as otherwise contemplated by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, (ii) frustrate in a more than insignificant way the intent or purpose of the Project Approvals or preclude compliance therewith including, without limitation, by preventing or imposing limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development of the Project; (iii) prevent or limit the processing or procuring of subsequent project approvals; or (iv) reduce the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole, or otherwise requiring any reduction in the square footage of, or total number of, proposed buildings, 157 structures and other improvements, in a manner that is inconsistent with or more restrictive than the limitations included in this Agreement and the Project Approvals; and/or . .2 If any of such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, or official policies do not have general (City-wide) applicability. . Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, if a City ordinance, resolution, policy, directive, or other measure is enacted or becomes effective, whether by action of the City or by initiative, and if it imposes a building moratorium which affects all or any part of the Project, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code Section , provided that to the extent a moratorium applies to all or any part of the Project then the Term shall automatically be extended for a period of time equal to the period of the moratorium. . Revised Application Fees. Notwithstanding Section .2, any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the Term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability and are consistent with State law limitations that processing fees not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which they are charged; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and ( ) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. By so agreeing, Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of any such application, processing, and/or inspection fees. . New Taxes. This Agreement shall not prohibit the application of any subsequently enacted City-wide taxes to the Project provided that (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective, and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. By so agreeing, Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of any such taxes, facially or as applied to its Project or Property, or to claim exemption from any taxes to the extent allowed by law. . Development of the Project; Phasing, Timing. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo 158 (1 ) Cal. d , that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the Parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that this Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete any action, including without limitation, development of the Project within any period of time set by City. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create nor shall it be construed to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project, or liability in Developer under this Agreement if the development fails to occur. It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals. . Processing. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the authority or obligation of City to hold necessary public hearings, nor to limit the discretion of City or any of its officers or officials with regard to subsequent project approvals that require the exercise of discretion by City, provided that such discretion shall be exercised consistent with the vested rights granted by this Agreement, the Applicable Law, and the Project Approvals. . Property Grading. .1 Phasing. For mutual benefit, the Parties desire mass grading of the Property prior to the Dublin Boulevard Extension through the Property. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Section .1 .1 o(B), when the intended use of a site requires approval of a discretionary zoning permit, a grading permit shall not be issued until said approval. The Parties agree that the intended use, exclusively for purposes of Dublin Municipal Code Section .1 .1 o(B) and this Section, shall mean the Dublin Boulevard Extension. In accordance with this Section, Developer may apply for, and City may issue a grading permit, notwithstanding approval of a discretionary zoning permit for the intended use of the remainder of the Project site. .2 Slope Easement. The Project Approvals require Developer to dedicate a Slope Easement ("SE") for that portion of the Property adjacent to the future Dublin Boulevard frontage, if mass grading has not commenced per the preliminary grading plan as shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map . Developer shall cooperate in good faith with the City Engineer on the extent of the SE dedication necessary to accommodate the Dublin Boulevard Extension. The SE shall be dedicated by separate instrument, in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Attorney, prior to the first final or parcel map filed by 159 Developer within the three-year ( ) period referenced in Section . If a final or parcel map is not filed by Developer within the three-year ( ) period, the SE shall be dedicated in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard Extension right-of-way dedication described in Section . . Affordable Housing. .1 Units Required by Regulations. Developer proposes up to 2 residential units on the Property. Pursuant to the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter . of the Dublin Municipal Code) (the "Regulations"), developers of more than twenty (2o) residential units are required to set aside 12. % of the total number of units in the project as affordable units as specified. .2 Alternative Compliance Authorized. Under the Regulations, certain exceptions permit developers to satisfy the obligation other than through on -site construction. For instance, part of this obligation can be satisfied through the payment of a fee in -lieu of construction of units. In addition, developers can satisfy their affordable housing obligations by, among other mechanisms, obtaining City Council approval of an alternative method of compliance that the City Council finds meet the purposes of the Regulations. . Satisfaction of City Requirements. Developer shall satisfy its affordable housing obligation through compliance with the Regulations. . Right -of -Way Dedications. The Project Approvals require Developer to dedicate a portion of the Property to the City in fee as right-of-way for the Dublin Boulevard Extension, in general conformance with the adopted Precise Plan, the most current design plans on file with the office of the City Engineer at the time of dedication, and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map . Such dedication shall occur no later than three ( ) years from the approval date of the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps , , and . The dedicated right-of- way shall be shown on the first final or parcel map filed within three -years ( ) of the approval date of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps , , and . If a final or parcel map is not filed within the three-year ( ) period, the right-of-way shall be dedicated by a separate deed instrument, in a form satisfactory to the City Engineer and City Attorney. Developer agrees that it will not receive any 10 160 compensation or receive any Eastern Transportation Impact Fee ("EDTIF") credits for dedicating the right-of-way for the Dublin Boulevard Extension. . Community Facilities District - Service and Maintenance of Public Streets and Improvements. .1 Community Facilities District. Developer agrees to cooperate in the formation of, or annexation into, a community facilities district or districts established pursuant to the Mello -Roos Act, including approval of RMA for the purpose of financing the services and maintenance of all public streets (including storm drain systems, streetlights, and other street appurtenances) constructed by the Developer within the future residential tract parcels after City's acceptance of improvements. Developer agrees that the boundaries of the district(s) will include all of the Property, and that Developer will not contest and will, for and on behalf of all of the Property, vote in favor of formation of or annexation into the district(s) prior to filing the first final map. Developer shall pay its fair share of administrative costs incurred by the City associated with the formation of and/or annexation into the district(s), as determined by the City Engineer, prior to filing the first final map. .2 Alternative Method of Compliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City agrees that Developer may alternatively establish a maintenance fund, in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, that compensates for all future maintenance of all public streets (including storm drain systems, street lights, and other street appurtenances) within Parcels and (future residential tract), as shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps , , and , after City's acceptance of improvements. If Developer complies with this Section .2 prior to filing the first final map, Developer shall be exempt from compliance with Section .1. 10. Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Credits. Developer shall not use or apply any EDTIF credits that it purchased or transferred from any other credit -holder to satisfy Developer's obligations set forth herein. City agrees that EDTIF credits for all eligible "Public Improvements" as defined in Section 1 shall be provided for use by Developer upon completion of construction or upon bonding for said "Public Improvements." Developer shall also have the right to transfer or sell any eligible EDTIF credits that it receives from the City to future commercial (GC/CO) or residential developers of the 11 161 various parcels of Tract in accordance with the requirements of the Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines, February 202 . 11. Cooperation with Mitigation. 11.1 The City is in the midst of pursuing regulatory -agency permits for the Dublin Boulevard Extension project ("DBE project") that crosses through the Property. The Property is such that the City is required to mitigate for the permanent indirect impacts on special status species in the areas of the Property south of Dublin Boulevard. Developer's Project will require Developer to mitigate for direct impacts on special status species in the areas of the Property south of Dublin Boulevard. The City has already committed to financing the mitigation of the DBE project, and Developer will directly benefit from such expenditure. Meanwhile, Developer is prepared to submit permits of its own to the resource agencies, and those permit submittals will require a mitigation plan that includes mitigation for the permanent indirect impacts south of Dublin Boulevard, and the City is not yet prepared to submit its permits. The City has caused its consultant, Resource Environmental Solutions, Inc., to begin developing a plan to make its mitigation solution available for Developer's use in mitigating the Project's direct impacts. The Parties agree to cooperate in a commercially reasonable manner to effectuate the goal of making the City's mitigation solution available to Developer. Accordingly, each party agrees to deliver whatever consents may be necessary to accomplish such objective. 12. Nature Community Parkland. 12.1 Purchase and Sale. Subject to to -be -negotiated terms, the Developer will sell, and City will purchase, using revenues derived from the Public Facilities Fee ("PFF"), the approximately 2. 2 acres of land on the Property that is presently designated as "Open Space" under the City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (the "Nature Park Land") for a total purchase price of $2 , , o ("Purchase Price"). The purchase price is based on the land value of $ , oo per acre used in the City's PFF program. If the final acreage delivered to the City is more or less than 2. 2 acres, but not more than .10 acres, the Purchase Price shall be adjusted accordingly. The Parties agree to negotiate in good faith toward a mutually agreeable purchase and sale agreement (the "PSA") within six months of the Effective Date. 12.1.1 Initial Payment. The Parties agree that the City's initial payment under the PSA will take the form of a $ ,2 ,i payment(or such amount as may be adjusted below) (the "Initial Payment") to the Developer to 12 162 purchase the Nature Parkland from the PFF that will be simultaneously paid by the Developer to the City for the Mitigation Cost. The Initial Payment calculation of $ ,2 ,1 is the City's present estimate of the City's cost of mitigating for the permanent indirect impacts on special status species of the Dublin Boulevard Extension project on the Property in areas south of Dublin Boulevard (the "Mitigation Cost"). Should the Mitigation Cost exceed $ ,2 ,1 , the Initial Payment shall be increased to be equal to the increased amount. Developer has previously committed to reimbursing the City for the Mitigation Cost because the Mitigation offsets the Developer's obligation to mitigate for the direct impacts on special species of the development on the same lands. Should negotiations on the PSA not be proceeding to the City's satisfaction, the City may elect at any time to require Developer to reimburse it for the Mitigation Cost. 12.1.2 Remaining Balance. With regard to the remaining balance of the Purchase Price after the Initial Payment, the Parties acknowledge that the Public Facilities Fee funds presently available are insufficient to allow the City to pay the full amount of the Purchase Price in the short term. The City acknowledges that its obligation to negotiate in good faith toward the PSA includes negotiating a mutually agreeable payment schedule for payment of the balance of the Purchase Price (the "Payment Schedule") that would be reflected in the PSA. If the Parties are unable to agree on the Payment Schedule in the PSA, Developer may elect to have the balance treated as a credit under the terms of the PFF program. 12.2 Wetlands. The Parties acknowledge that there are the jurisdictional wetlands on the Nature Park Land and that Developer's Resource Agency Permits may subject such lands to a deed restriction or conservation easement for wetland preservation. The Parties agree that the ownership of such lands, and the impact of the deed restriction or conservation easement, should the City take ownership of such lands, on the Purchase Price are unresolved and will have to be resolved in the course of negotiating the PSA. If the City were to take ownership of the jurisdictional wetlands, the Developer shall provide a maintenance fund or establish a maintenance mechanism for maintenance of the wetlands within the Nature Park Land as required by the Resource Agencies. 1 . Public Improvements. The parties agree that the Project's build out will require the completion of certain improvements and that the City's approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps , , and shall not prevent the City 1 163 from later requiring the completion ofthe following in conjunction with later phases of the project: 1 .1 Dublin Boulevard. In conjunction with development of either Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map , Developer shall coordinate with the City of Dublin and Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) on the Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension Project. Developer shall construct Dublin Boulevard Extension Project improvements between Fallon Road and Croak Road, consistent with the latest Dublin Boulevard Extension Project Improvement Plans. The Developer shall be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) credits for the cost of the eligible improvements constructed or bonded for excluding the land cost of the right-of-way, not to exceed the cost shown in the EDTIF. 1 .2 Dublin Boulevard. In conjunction with development of either Parcel or Parcel of Vesting Tentative Tract Map , Developer shall coordinate with the City of Dublin and Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) on the Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension Project. Developer shall construct Dublin Boulevard Extension Project improvements between Fallon Road and easterly project terminus or any portion not yet constructed within the project boundary, consistent with the latest Dublin Boulevard Extension Project Improvement Plans. The Developer shall be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) credits for the cost of the eligible improvements constructed or bonded for excluding the land cost of the right-of-way, not to exceed the cost shown in the EDTIF. 1 . Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road Intersection. In conjunction with development of either Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel or Parcel of Vesting Tentative Tract Map , Developer shall complete the Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road intersection improvements to accommodate the following intersection lane geometry. The minimum width of through lanes and turn lanes adjacent to the median and the curb shall be 12'. • Northbound: three left -turn lanes, four through lanes, two right -turn lanes • Southbound: two left -turn lanes, four through lanes, one right -turn lane • Eastbound: two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, two right -turn lanes • Westbound: three left -turn lanes, three through lanes, one right -turn lane The Developer shall be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) credits for the cost of the eligible improvements constructed or bonded for 1 164 excluding the land cost of the right-of-way, not to exceed the cost shown in the EDTIF. 1 . Fallon Road / Fallon Gateway - Parcel 1 Access Intersection. In conjunction with development of either Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel or Parcel of Vesting Tentative Tract Map , Developer shall complete the Fallon Road / Fallon Gateway intersection to accommodate the following intersection lane geometry. The minimum width of through lanes and turn lanes adjacent to the median and the curb shall be 12'. • Northbound: two left -turn lanes, four through lanes, one right -turn lane • Southbound: one left -turn lane, four through lanes, one right -turn lane • Westbound: Applicant shall provide the appropriate number of through lanes, left -turn lanes, right -turn lanes with sufficient storage space to accommodate project traffic. The Developer shall be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) credits for the cost of the eligible improvements constructed or bonded for excluding the land cost of the right-of-way, not to exceed the cost shown in the EDTIF. 1 . Fallon Road. In conjunction with development of either Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel or Parcel of Vesting Tentative Tract Map , Developer shall complete the following improvements and be eligible for Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) credits for the cost of the eligible improvements constructed or bonded for excluding the land cost of the right-of-way, not to exceed the cost shown in the EDTIF: 1 . .1 Ultimate widening and frontage improvements for Fallon Road along the Parcel 1 project frontage, including northbound travel lanes between I- o Interchange to Dublin Boulevard. Street improvements shall include, but are not limited to ' wide protected bicycle lane and minimum ' wide median, and minimum ' wide sidewalk. The cross-section of Fallon Road shall have a minimum of four through travel lanes in each direction plus turn lanes at the intersections; and 1 . .2 Improvements north of Dublin Boulevard to provide connectivity to existing sidewalk to the north, City acknowledges that a portion of the necessary right of way is owned by DR Acquisitions, LLC and that it would need to be acquired by Developer or the City prior to improvements on that portion of the right of way being completed. The City acknowledges that the 1 165 requirements related to the improvements described in this Subsection 1 . will be subject to Government Code section 2. ; and 1 . . Class IV bike lanes in both directions, consisting of a - foot wide median and an -foot wide bicycle lane with protected intersections at every signalized intersection along Fallon Road from the I- o Interchange to Central Parkway per the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 1 . Croak Road. In conjunction with any development proposal of Parcel 1 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map , Developer shall request the abandonment of Croak Road south of Dublin Boulevard, acquire the lands at "Fair Market Value"; and incorporate the lands into its project, prior to issuance of a building permit for Parcel 1. The vacation of Croak Road shall exclude the portion of right-of-way reserved for future Valley Link project. Developer shall pay all costs associated with the right-of-way vacation and parcel acquisition. The City would offset any Developer costs associated with the Developer or the City acquiring the DR Acquisitions, LLC lands described in subsection 1 . , from the amounts payable by Developer for the acquisition of to -be -abandoned Croak Road. 1 . East-West Street South of Dublin Boulevard. Unless Croak Road is maintained as a private street, Parcel 1 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall include a private street that runs parallel to Dublin Boulevard connecting to Fallon Road at the intersection with Fallon Gateway and Dublin Boulevard and Croak Road intersection, which street shall include bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. 1 . I- o / Fallon Road Interchange Fair Share. The Developer shall pay the fair share towards the construction of the Phase 2 I- o/Fallon Road Interchange improvements no later than o-days after recordation of the first residential final map (Tract or ) and no building permits for the residential development shall be issued until the fair share payment has been made. The fair share will be determined based on the Phase 2 Interchange cost and the City's Local Transporation Analysis and any additional analysis subject to approval of the City Engineer. Should the trips associated with actual development on any of either Parcel 1, Parcel 2, Parcel or Parcel of Vesting Tentative Tract Map be less than used to calculate the fair -share payment, the City will consider an appropriate refund to the then -owner of such parcel to reflect the reduced number of trips. 1 166 1 . Vehicle Trip Reduction with Transportation Demand Management. To reduce the impact of the project generated traffic along Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard, Developer shall be required to prepare and implement in conjunction with each subsequent Site Development Review ("SDR") a Transportation Demand Management plan ("TDM plan") to reduce vehicle trips to and from the project site(s), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The TDM plan shall include trip reduction measures necessary to achieve a minimum overall target of trip reduction to reduce peak hour trips by io% or an appropriate amount of trip reduction based on future transportation analysis but not less than io% for office and residential uses. The TDM plan shall also include and implement TDM Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the retail uses. The SDR conditions shall require City approval of the TDM plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building. The SDR plan shall require annual reporting of trips, surveys, and the making of revisions to the TDM plan as needed to meet the trip reduction targets or thresholds to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Vehicle trip reductions will be measured through counts of vehicles that enter and exit the site and by comparison of the results to established trip thresholds. TDM reduction targets will be applied to establish the thresholds. The estimates and thresholds will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. TDM measures that target office employees shall be described in detail in the TDM plan, including information regarding the direct implementing party. The following TDM measures shall be considered for inclusion in the TDM plan. 1 . .1 On -site support facilities including bicycle paths, pedestrian paths linking buildings and bus stops. 1 . .2 In building support facilities including showers, changing rooms, bicycle storage rooms and bicycle racks. 1 . . Ridesharing options for long distance commuters such as carpool and vanpool matching services. 1 . . Guaranteed ride home services for commuters who carpool, take transit or bicycle to work. 1 . . Financial incentives such as pre-tax benefits for transit and bicycle expenses (e.g., Commuter Check) or subsidized transit passes (e.g., Commuter Checks, Clipper Cards) for all employees. 1 167 1 do Future Transportation Analysis. Developer acknowledges that future Site Development Review approvals will require additional transportation analysis, including but not limited to the following (Parcel references are to Parcel designations in Vesting Tentative Tract Map ): 1 .10.1 The planned access along Dublin Boulevard to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, between Fallon Road and Croak Road. 1 .10.2 The east -west connection between Fallon Gateway intersection and the signalized intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Croak Road. 1 .10. The intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Croak Road. 1 .10. The planned access along Dublin Boulevard to Parcel and Parcel . 1 .10. Adverse effects to the Fallon Road -El Charro Road/I- o Interchange. 1 .10. Adverse effects to the Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road intersection. 1 .11 In the event of any conflict between this Section 1 and the conditions of approval for the Project Approvals regarding the Public Improvements described in this Section 1 , the terms of this Section 1 shall control. 1 . Amendment or Cancellation. 1 .1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. The Project and Property shall be subject to state and federal laws and regulations and this Agreement does not create any vested right in state and federal laws and regulations in effect on the Effective Date. If state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council (in accordance with Chapter . ). Each Party agrees to extend to the other its 1 168 prompt and reasonable cooperation in so modifying this Agreement or approved plans. 1 .2 Amendment of Development Agreement by Mutual Consent. This Agreement maly be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter . . Review and approval of an amendment to this Development Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver, or change to this Development Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing that expressly refers to this Development Agreement and signed by the duly authorized representatives of both Parties. 1 .2.1 Partial Amendment. When a Party seeking such an amendment owns or has an equitable right to only a portion of the whole of the Property ("Portion"), then such Party may only seek amendment of this Agreement as directly relates to the Portion, and the Party owning any other Portion shall not be required or entitled to be a signatory or to consent to an amendment that affects only another Party's Portion. 1 . Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement which relate to (a) the Term; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph .1; (c) provisions for "significant" reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) an increase in the density or intensity of use of the overall Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall be deemed an "Amendment" and shall require notice or public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council before the Parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City's Public Works Director shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is "significant" in the context of the overall Project. 1 . Clarifications. If and when, from time to time, during the Term of this Agreement, City and Developer agree refinements and clarifications are necessary or appropriate with respect to the details of performance of City and Developer hereunder, City and Developer shall effectuate such clarifications through letter agreements (each, a "Clarification") approved by City and Developer, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof, and may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Developer. No such Clarification 1 169 shall constitute an amendment to this Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine on behalf of City whether a requested clarification is of such a character to constitute an Amendment subject to Section 1 . or a Clarification subject to this Section 1 . . The City Manager shall have the authority to review, approve, and execute Clarifications to this Agreement provided that such Clarifications are not Amendments. 1 . Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter . . Any fees paid pursuant to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City. 1 . Annual Review. 1 .1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between July 1 and August 1 , 202 , and thereafter between each July 1 and August 1 during the Term. Review shall be conducted in accordance with Section . .1 0 of Chapter . and the provisions of this Section 1 . 1 .2 Initiation of Review. The City's Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section . .1 0 of Chapter . , by giving to Developer thirty ( o) days prior written notice that the City intends to undertake such review. Not less than thirty ( o) days after receipt of the notice, Developer shall provide evidence to the Director, as reasonably determined necessary by the Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the material terms and provisions of the Agreement as to the whole or relevant portion of the Property owned by Developer. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon Developer. 1 . Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the mail to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five days prior to any public hearing addressing annual review. 1 . Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 20 170 1 . Default. 1 .1 Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the Parties may pursue all remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including, but not limited to, the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 1 .2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either Party, the non -defaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting Party. Subject to a Mortgagee's right to cure pursuant to Section 1 .2 hereof, if the default is not cured by the defaulting Party within thirty ( o) days after service of such notice of default, the non -defaulting Party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty ( o) day period, the non -defaulting Party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting Party begins to cure such default within such thirty ( o) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Any notice of default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the failures in performance that the noticing Party claims constitutes the event of default, all facts constituting substantial evidence of such failure, and how such failure may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. During the time periods herein specified for cure of a failure of performance, the Party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of (a) termination of this Agreement, (b) institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or (c) issuance of any approval with respect to the Project. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 1 . No Damages against City. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 1 . Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other Party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties; (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments; and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying Party, the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A Party receiving a 21 171 request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty ( o) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the Parties. The City Manager of the City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the Party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such Party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this Section are true, and any Party may rely on such deemed certification. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by Transferees (as defined in Section 21.2) and Mortgagees (as defined in Section 1 .i). 1 . Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 1 .1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 1 .2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1 .1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 1 . Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall 22 172 have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City's notice. The City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty -day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2 for not more than an additional sixty days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee. 1 . Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition, or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal; provided that, if the unenforceability, invalidation, or illegality would deprive either City or Developer of material benefits derived from this Development Agreement, or make performance under this Development Agreement unreasonably difficult, then City and Developer shall meet and confer and shall make good faith efforts to amend or modify this Development Agreement in a manner that is mutually acceptable to City and Developer. 20. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. 20.1 Prevailing Party. If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. 20.2 Third Party Challenge. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any the Project Approvals (including this Agreement), the Parties shall cooperate in defending such action. The Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 21. Transfers and Assignments. 21.1 Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of 2 173 law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 21.2 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer, or assign all or portions of its Property to other developers (each such other developer is referred to as a "Transferee"). In connection with any such sale, transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests and obligations of Developer arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred, to such Transferee, provided, however, that: except as provided herein, no such transfer, sale or assignment of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. 21. Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale, or assignment of this Agreement within ten (io) days after Developer's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications, and other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform Developer's obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer, or assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer or assignment. 21. Considerations for Approval of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. In considering the request, the City Manager shall base the decision upon the proposed assignee's reputation, experience, financial resources, access to credit, and capability to successfully carry out the development of the Property to completion. The City Manager's approval shall be for the purposes of a) providing notice to City; b) assuring that all obligations of Developer are 2 174 allocated as between Developer and the proposed purchaser, transferee, or assignee as provided by this Agreement; and c) assuring City that the proposed purchaser, transferee, or assignee is financially capable of performing Developer's obligations hereunder not withheld by Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager's approval shall not be required for an assignment to an entity or entities controlling Developer, controlled by Developer, or under common control with Developer, provided that Developer owns and controls no less than fifty percent ( o%) of such successor entity or controls the day-to-day management decisions of such successor entity. 21. Release upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer's rights, interests, and obligations hereunder pursuant to Section 21.2 of this Agreement, Developer shall be automatically released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests, and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests, and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications, and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. 21. Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement or any portion of the Property transferred, certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Developer wishes to retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests, and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer, or assignment of the Property. Developer's purchaser, transferee, or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests, and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests, and/or obligations. 21. Partial Assignment. In the event of a partial Transfer, City shall cooperate with Developer and any proposed Transferee to allocate rights and obligations under the Development Agreement and the Project Approvals among the retained Property and the transferred Property. Provided that City receives a copy of the assignment and assumption agreement by which Transferee assumes the transferred rights and obligations associated with the 2 175 transferred Property: (i) any subsequent breach with respect to the transferred obligations shall not constitute a breach with respect to the retained rights and obligations of such transferor (or any other Transferee) under the Development Agreement, and (ii) any subsequent breach with respect to the retained obligations of Transferor (or any other Transferee) shall not constitute a breach with respect to the transferred rights and obligations of a Transferee under the Development Agreement. The Transferor and the Transferee each shall be solely responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such Transferor/Transferee. Any amendment to the Development Agreement between City and a Transferor or Transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such Transferor or Transferee. 22. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 2 . Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees, or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action, City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action, and shall not unreasonably withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer. 2 . Insurance. 2 .1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of commercial general liability insurance with a per -occurrence combined single limit of not less than $i,000,000. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross -liability endorsement. City and Developer agree that such insurance 2 176 may include alternative risk management programs, including self-insurance, or a combination of self-insurance and insurance, provided that such alternative risk management programs provide protection equivalent to that specified under this Agreement. 2 .2 Workers' Compensation Insurance. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall maintain Workers' Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Workers' Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain any such insurance. 2 . Evidence of Insurance. Prior to issuance of any permits for the Project, including grading permits, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 2 .1 and 2 .2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen (1 ) days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy unless replaced with similar coverage. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives, and to Developer performing work on the Project. 2 . Sewer and Water. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency not within the control of the City. City agrees that it shall not take any action with DSRSD opposing Developer's efforts to reserve water and sewer capacity sufficient to serve the Project described herein. 2 . Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin 10o Civic Plaza Dublin, CA Phone No.: ( 2 ) - o Fax No.: ( 2 ) - 1 With copies to: City Attorney 2 177 follows: Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as GH PacVest, LLC Lingyun Sun, Chief Americas Officer 2 0o Post Oak Blvd., Suite 11 Houston, TX 0 Phone No.: ( 2) -0 2 Email: lsun@gha-group.com A Party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other Party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of forty-eight ( ) hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier, which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission or email, which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 2 . Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement, including its exhibits, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. 2 . Exhibits. The following document is referred to in this Agreement and is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property 2 . Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are made a part hereof. o. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by each Party on a separate signature page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall constitute one single instrument. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 1. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution by all Parties. Thereafter, if this Agreement is 2 178 terminated, modified, or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the Alameda County Recorder. 2. No Third -Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than the Parties and their respective permitted successors and assigns, any rights, or remedies hereunder. . Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. . Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement for which time is an element. . Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party to this Development Agreement shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of this Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this Development Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement. . Section Headings. Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Development Agreement. . Construction of Agreement. This Development Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Developer and City, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement. . Authority. The persons signing below represent and warrant that they have the authority to bind their respective Party and that all necessary 2 179 board of directors, shareholders, partners, city councils, or other approvals have been obtained. . Non -Intended Prevailing Wage Requirements. Except for public improvements constructed by the Developer and to be dedicated to the City (which are subject to conditions of Project Approval), nothing in this Development Agreement shall in any way require, or be construed to require, Developer to pay prevailing wages with respect to any work of construction or improvement within the Project (a "Non -Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement"). But for the understanding of the Parties as reflected in the immediately preceding sentence, the Parties would not have entered into this Development Agreement based upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Developer and City have made every effort in reaching this Development Agreement to ensure that its terms and conditions will not result in a Non - Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement. These efforts have been conducted in the absence of any applicable existing judicial interpretation of the recent amendments to the California prevailing wage law. If, despite such efforts, any provision of this Development Agreement shall be determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to result in a Non -Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement, such determination shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any provision hereof, provided, however, that the Parties hereby agree that, in such event, this Development Agreement shall be reformed such that each provision of this Development Agreement that results in the Non -Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement will be removed from this Development Agreement as though such provisions were never a part of the Development Agreement, and, in lieu of such provision(s), replacement provisions shall be added as a part of this Development Agreement as similar in terms to such removed provision(s) as may be possible and legal, valid and enforceable, but without resulting in the Non -Intended Prevailing Wage Requirement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. 0 180 CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPER GH PacVes. LLC By: By: d L Linda Smith, City Manager Name: Li yun Su Its: Chief Americas cer Attest: Marsha Moore, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Bakker, City Attorney (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) 31 181 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Dublin , County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL A: PARCEL ONE: BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1, EAST MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERN LINE OF THE STATE HIGHWAY FROM DUBLIN TO LIVERMORE AS SAID LINE IS DEFINED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED FROM ALICE M. SHORT AND BEATRICE B. BRIGHT, TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED MARCH 13, 1934, IN BOOK 3008 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY AT PAGE 324, WITH THE EASTERN LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 6152, AS SAID COUNTY ROAD IS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED FROM HENRIETTA FARRELLY TO COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1918, IN BOOK 2612, OF DEEDS, AT PAGE 352, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS; RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89° 30' EAST ALONG THE NORTHERN LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY 814.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 31' WEST 2855.00 FEET TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE WEST ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE 435.70 FEET TO THE EASTERN LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD NO. 6152; THENCE ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES; SOUTH 36° 35' WEST 23.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23° 20' WEST 901.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 31' EAST 2001.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE SANTA RITA RANCHO. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 1950, BOOK 6021, PAGE 575, SERIES NO. AE-13413. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1968, BOOK 2279, PAGE 110, SERIES NO. BA-117504. PARCEL TWO: A PORTION OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED NO. 6832 RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 1950, IN BOOK 6021, PAGE 575, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF CROAK ROAD (ALSO KNOWN AS COUNTY ROAD NO. 6152) AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS SOUTH 0°21'44" WEST, ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, WITH A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 44°54'24", AN ARC LENGTH OF 39.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°33'15" WEST, 9.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'16" WEST, 4.70 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID CROAK ROAD; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID LINE NORTH 0°21'44" EAST, 35.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT. PARCEL THREE: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID STATE DEED NO. 32178 (REEL 2001 OR IMAGE 911), DISTANT THEREON S. 0°21'44" W., 159.94 FEET FROM THE F 182 NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LAST SAID PARCEL; THENCE FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS S. 31°56'43" W., ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 270.00 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 56°35'28", AN ARC LENGTH OF 266.68 FEET; THENCE S. 89°59'16" E., 221.42 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID STATE DEED NO. 6833 (VOLUME 6402 OR PAGE 393); THENCE ALONG LAST SAID LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCELS DESCRIBED IN SAID STATE DEED NO. 32177 (REEL 1995 OR IMAGE 343) AND SAID STATE DEED NO. 32178 (REEL 2001 OR IMAGE 911) N. 0°21'44" E., 127.11 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT. PARCEL B: A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE INDENTURE FROM SAMUEL B. MARTIN TO OWEN P. SUTTON, RECORDED JUNE 7, 1862, IN BOOK M OF DEEDS AT PAGE 266, BEING A PORTION OF THE SANTA RITA RANCHO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINES OF FALLON ROAD, A COUNTY ROAD WITH A WIDTH OF 60 FEET AS SAID ROAD IS DESCRIBED IN THE INDENTURE TO THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, RECORDED JULY 31, 1941, IN BOOK 4115 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS PAGE 57, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN AFORESAID INDENTURE FROM SAMUEL B. MARTIN TO OWEN P. SUTTON; SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING LOCATED ON THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 430.00 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 63° 55' 40" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 89° 18' 00" EAST, 2,543.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROJECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 6152, KNOWN AS CROAK ROAD AND DESCRIBED IN THE INDENTURE TO THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1918 IN BOOK 2612 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 352; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND PROJECTION THEREOF, SOUTH 0° 19' 30" EAST, 2274.37 FEET TO THE EASTERLY PROJECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JUNE 4, 1956 IN BOOK 8048 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 339; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 89° 20' 00" WEST, 200.40 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID UNION OIL COMPANY PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE SOUTH 0° 25' 00" EAST, 242.29 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF STATE FREEWAY 580, AS DESCRIBED IN THE INDENTURE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JULY 7, 1967 ON REEL 1995 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT IMAGE 347, SAID POINT BEING LOCATED ON THE ARC OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 222.02 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 8° 11' 49" WEST; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF STATE FREEWAY 580 AS FOLLOWS: WESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8° 51' 49" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 34.35 FEET: THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 89° 20' 00" WEST, 302.60 FEET: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4972.48 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 33' 15" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 308.45; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 85° 46' 45" WEST, 556.93 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 972.09 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 45° 00' 00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 763.48 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 40° 46' 45" WEST 369.85 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 278.03 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47° 30' 55" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 230.57 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89° 37' 40" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 46.93 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 1° 20' 00" EAST, 92.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88° 40' 00" WEST, 12.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF AFORESAID FALLON ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF FALLON ROAD AS FOLLOWS: NORTH 1° 20' 00" EAST, 1457.58 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 430.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGEL OF 27° 24' 20" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 205.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED NO. 32178 (AZ69610) TO STATE OF 183 CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JULY 18, 1967, IN REEL 2001, IMAGE 911, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 83° 33' 16" WEST, 8.01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 11 OF THAT CERTAIN SET OF MAPS OF 20 SHEETS ENTITLED "RELINQUISHMENT IN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA", RECORDED JUNE 19, 1973, IN REEL 3444, IMAGE 722 TO 761, INCLUSIVE, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, SOUTH 00 21' 44" WEST, 18.69 FEET AND ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 222.00 FEET THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 82° 13' 05", AN ARC LENGTH OF 318.57 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF FIRST SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID LINE NORTH 00 21' 44" EAST, 242.28 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF FIRST SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID LINE SOUTH 88° 33' 16" EAST 191.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT. APN: 905-0001-006-03 (Parcel One of Parcel A), 985-0027-005 (Parcel Two of Parcel A), 985-0027-002 (Parcel B) and 985-0027-004 (Parcel C) 184 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of Texas County of 4'iP02-1215 ) ss. On iUt4E tom , 20 7-L1 before me, AA.OA Citto , a Notary Public, in and for said State and County, personally appeared lAOetykN 1 , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Texas that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 30-6 NOT ) Y PUBLIC 5533936.6 5533936.10 s1' MELISSA CAO 1p G =1*40: Notary Public. State of Texas : Comm. Expires 07-31-2027 ,,,,;,��� Notary ID 130316308 2 185 Attachment 9 ICKITTELSON � &ASSOCIATES DU BLI N FALLON 580 PROJECT LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Dublin, CA April 3, 2024 Inside front cover Page Intentionally blank 187 Dublin Fallon 580 Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) Dublin, CA Prepared for: Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 510.839.1742 Project Manager: Aaron Elias Associate Engineer Project Principal: Damian Stefanakis Senior Principal Planner Project Number 29998 April 3, 2024 is 'S\ 188 Page Intentionally blank 189 Near -Term Plus Project Conditions Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queue CMP Assessment Parking Assessment 4. Discussion of Effects & Recommended Improvements Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Dublin Boulevard & Croak Road Fallon Road & I-580 WB Ramps 95th Percentile Queue Reduction Recommendations CONTENTS 1. Introduction Project Description 2. System Overview Roadway Network Transit Facilities Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities 3. Traffic Operations Analysis Study Location & Data Collection Analysis Methodologies & Level of Service Standards Intersection Operations Existing Conditions 1 1 3 3 4 5 8 8 9 9 11 Near -Term Conditions 12 13 16 20 24 38 43 45 45 46 46 47 48 48 Local Transportation Analysis April 3, 2024 List of Tables LIST OF TABLES Table 1: ITE Trip Generation Estimate for the Project 1 Table 2. Existing Transit Facilities 5 Table 3. General Level of Service Definitions 9 Table 4 Existing Operations - Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours 11 Table 5 Near -Term Operations - Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours 12 Table 6: Near -Term Operations AM Peak Hour with and without the Project 14 Table 7: Near -Term Operations PM Peak Hour with and without the Project 15 Table 8 Cumulative Operations - Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours 19 Table 9: Cumulative Operations AM Peak Hour with and without the Project 22 Table 10: Cumulative Operations PM Peak Hour with and without the Project 23 Table 11: AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue in Feet 26 Table 12: PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue in Feet 32 Table 13: Analysis of CMP Segments for Existing Conditions 39 Table 14: Analysis of CMP Segments for 2040 Conditions 40 Table 15: Municipal Code Required Vs. Site Plan Provided Residential Parking 43 Table 16: ITE Parking Generation Vs. Provides and Municipal Code Requirements 43 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ii 191 Local Transportation Analysis April 3, 2024 List of Tables Page intentionally blank. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. iii 192 Section 1 Introduction 193 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of the local transportation assessment (LTA) conducted for the proposed development of the property owned by GH PacVest and known as the Dublin Fallon 580 project (Project), located east of Fallon Road and south of Central Parkway in Dublin, CA. Project Description The Project is proposing to develop property that is located east of Fallon Road and south of Central Parkway in Dublin, CA. The applicant for the Project identified the proposed project as a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The identified uses include: • 238 Multifamily Residential Dwelling Units • 2,888,400 Square Feet of Advanced Manufacturing • 314 Hotel Rooms • 100,000 Square Feet of Retail • 100,000 Square Feet of Office The resulting trip generation per the 11th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation manual for the daily, AM peak hour, and the PM peak hour is shown in Table 1. 'able 1: ITE Trip Generation Estimate for the Project Description Multi -Family Size 238 Units du ITE 220 Daily 1,604 AM Peak Hour PM In 77 Peak Hour In 23 Out 73 Total 96 Out 45 Total 122 Advanced Manufacturing 2,888.4 ksf 140 13,720 1,493 472 1,965 663 1,475 2,138 Hotel 314 Rooms 310 2,509 81 64 145 95 91 186 Retail 100 ksf 820 3,701 52 32 84 163 177 340 Office 100 ksf 710 1,084 134 18 152 24 120 144 Total 22,618 1,783 659 2,442 1,022 1,908 2,930 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 1 194 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Section 2 System Overview Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 2 195 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project 2. SYSTEM OVERVIEW The following section describes the existing conditions of the study area, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. Roadway Network Freeways Interstate 580 (1-580) is a generally east -west freeway that runs south of the project site. 1-580 connects the San Francisco Bay Area to the west and the City of Livermore to the east. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the project is 65 miles per hour (mph). Express lanes are present in both directions and are in effect Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Arterials/Collectors/Local Roadways Dublin Boulevard is a six -lane divided east -west roadway that extends west of the project site. Dublin Boulevard is classified in the City's General Plan' as an arterial between its western limits and Tassajara Road and classified as a collector between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (as well as the proposed extension to North Canyons Parkway). On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Dublin Boulevard is proposed to be extended connecting from its current terminus at Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. Central Parkway is a two-lane divided east -west roadway that extends west from Croak Road west of the project to Sterling. The roadway generally runs through residential land uses and provides access to Cottonwood Creek K-8 School near the project. Central Parkway is classified as an arterial between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and as a collector for its remaining extent. On -street parking is permitted east of Sunset View Drive near the project and in other segments abutting residential land uses. The posted speed limit is 25 mph in vicinity of the project. Central Parkway would be extended with the Francis Ranch (East Ranch) project with the proposed Project widening to the ultimate configuration. Croak Road is a north -south roadway that is currently not accessible to the public near the project site. Croak Road connects to Fallon Road near 1-580, Central Parkway at its eastern terminus, and Terracina Drive. The roadway is classified as a local residential roadway between Central Parkway and Positano Parkway. Once the Dublin Boulevard extension is constructed, Croak Road will connect Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. In the interim, Francis Ranch (East Ranch) will construct part of Croak Road as a two lane roadway near Central Parkway. Fallon Road/EI Charro Road is a north -south divided roadway that widens from four lanes south of Central Parkway to six lanes to the north; south of 1-580, Fallon Road becomes El Charro Road within the City of Pleasanton. Fallon Road is classified as an arterial roadway near the project site. The roadway primarily serves residential land uses within the City of Dublin, with some retail located near 1-580. On - The City of Dublin General Plan. Chapter 5: Land Use and Circulation — Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. Amended 2022. https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7799/Chapter-5-May- 2020?bidld= Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 3 196 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project street parking is not permitted along this roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is an east -west roadway located south of 1-580; the roadway is Stoneridge Drive within the City of Pleasanton and Jack London Boulevard within the City of Livermore. Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is classified as an arterial between Foothill Road and its eastern limits. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway. Class II bicycle lanes are present along much of its length. The posted speed limit is 40 mph in the City of Pleasanton (Stoneridge Drive) and increases to 45 mph in the City of Livermore (Jack London Boulevard). Stoneridge Drive is a 4 to 6-lane roadway; Jack London Boulevard varies from 2 to 6 lanes. Tassajara Road is a major north -south roadway in Dublin that connects to Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara to the north and the City of San Ramon and Contra Costa County to the south. Tassajara Road is classified as an arterial roadway within the City of Dublin; south of 1-580 within the City of Pleasanton, the roadway becomes Santa Rita Road. The roadway varies from two lanes to five lanes and is divided along its southern portion, between Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Ranch Drive. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph within the study area. Class 11 bicycle lanes are present, except for on the overpass over 1-580. Hacienda Drive is a north -south roadway that provides access to office, residential, and retail land uses such as Hacienda Crossings and Persimmon Place. Hacienda Drive is classified as an arterial and ranges from 3 lanes to 6 lanes. On -street parking is not permitted. The posted speed limit is 35 mph within the study area. North Canyons Parkway is an east -west arterial roadway that will connect to the planned Dublin Boulevard extension at its present western terminus at Doolan Road. The roadway merges with Portola Avenue at Collier Canyon Road. It is a four -lane, divided road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph near the study area. On -street parking is generally prohibited, and a bicycle lane is present on both sides of the road. North Canyons Parkway provides access to commercial and office land uses east of the project site, including several hotels and a Costco Wholesale warehouse. Airway Boulevard is a north -south roadway in Livermore that provides access to 1-580 and the Livermore Municipal Airport and connects to North Canyons Parkway at its northern terminus. It is classified as an arterial roadway and is a divided six -lane road north of Kitty Hawk Rd/1-580 EB off -ramp. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Class 11 bicycle lanes are present, except for on the overpass over 1-580. Transit Facilities The Project area is served by Tri-Valley Wheels, which provides fixed -route bus service operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and neighboring communities. Wheels also offers a Dial -A -Ride Paratransit service to eligible patrons in Dublin, available wherever fixed -route service is operating. Three routes directly serve the area surrounding the Project — Route 2, Route 30R (Rapid), and Route 501 (School Route). Currently, Route 30R follows Dublin Boulevard to Fallon Road, where it detours to 1-580 before connecting to North Canyons Parkway. With the Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 4 197 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project extension of Dublin Boulevard, this route is likely to use the extension and directly serve the non- residential portions of the Project which have access via Dublin Boulevard. The area is also served by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), with the nearest station being Dublin/Pleasanton which is located approximately four miles west of the site. Table 2 provides details about the bus service that serves the Project area, and Table 2. Existing Transit Facilities Route Route Type Frequency 2 Fixed E. Dublin/Pleasanton BART, Dublin Ranch, Route Emerald Glen Park, Fallon Middle School 30R Rapid Route Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, East Ave., Livermore Transit Center, Portola Park, and Ride, Las Positas College, N. Canyons, Dublin Blvd, E. Dublin BART, Dublin Civic Center, W. Dublin BART 501 School Positano, Fallon Road, Silvera Ranch, Tassajara (A, B, C) Route Road, Central Pwky., Dublin HS Source: wheeelsbus.com Weekdays Weekdays Weekends Weekdays One AM trip, one PM trip 2 per day 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM Every 30 minutes Hourly One AM trip, one PM trip for each route 2 per day Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Dublin's existing bikeway system consists of the following bikeway types, as defined in the City of Dublin's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2023). • Class I Multi -Use Paths provide a separate facility designed for the exclusive use of bicycles, pedestrians, and other non -motorized uses with minimal vehicle crossflows. o Class IA Paths exist along a separate alignment. o Class IB Sidepaths double as sidewalks along the side of the roadway. • Class II Bicycle Lanes are on -street bikeways that provide a dedicated space for exclusive or semi - exclusive bicycle use. o Class IIA Lanes are conventional one-way striped bike lanes. o Class IIB Lanes are upgraded bike lanes with striped buffers or green conflict markings. • Class III Bicycle Routes do not provide a dedicated space for bicycles but instead, bikes share the lane with motorists and signs, or pavement markings indicate the bike route. o Class IIIA Routes are signage-only routes. o Class 1118 Routes have wide curb lanes or shoulders. o Class IIIC Routes are routes with standard shared -lane markings ("sharrows"). • Class IV Separated Bicycle Lanes are bicycle lanes that provide vertical separation (e.g. grade separation, flexible posts, planters, on -street parking, etc.) from motorists on roadways. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 198 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project include: ■ Fallon Road has Class II facilities north of Dublin Boulevard, as well as Class IB sidepaths on the west side, north of Gleason Drive. ■ Dublin Boulevard generally has Class II facilities west of Fallon Road. ■ Central Parkway generally has Class II facilities east and west of Fallon Road. However, there is a Class III facility on Central Parkway eastbound between Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. Central Parkway east of Fallon Road also has Class IB sidepaths. ■ Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard has Class II facilities east and west of El Charro Road. ■ Airway Boulevard has Class II bicycle facilities south of N. Canyons Parkway. ■ N. Canyons Parkway has Class II facilities east of Airway Boulevard Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6 199 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Section 3 Traffic Operations Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7 200 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project 3. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Study Location & Data Collection Based on consultation with relevant agency staff, seventeen (17) existing intersections near the study location were identified as study locations. An additional five (5) intersections are included to account for two future intersections (identified with a "*" below) and three project driveways (identified with an "**" below). This results in a total of twenty-two (22) intersections which include: 1. Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard 2. Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 3. Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 4. Tassajara Road & I-580 WB Ramps 5. Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 6. Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 7. Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 8. Fallon Road & Central Parkway 9. Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 10. Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 11. Fallon Road & I-580 WB Ramps 12. El Charro Road & I-580 EB Ramps 13. El Charro Road & Jack London Boulevard 14. Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 15. Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 16. Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 17. Airway Boulevard & 1-580 WB Ramps 18. Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway** 19. Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7)** 20. Croak Road & Central Parkway* 21. Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8)** 22. Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard* Data at the 17 intersections that exist today were collected on January 18, 2024 which was a typical midweek day with good weather when schools were in session. Appendix A contains the raw count data from this data collection effort. In addition to intersection counts, signal timing plans were requested for each study intersection that is signalized from the jurisdiction that owns the signal which included the city of Dublin, city of Pleasanton, and Caltrans. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8 201 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Analysis Methodologies & Level of Service Standards Traffic operations were evaluated for the twenty-two study intersections using level of service (LOS) which describes the operating conditions experienced by users of a facility. LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of a few factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort, and convenience. Levels of service are designated "A" through "F" from best to worst, which cover the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. LOS "A" through "E" generally represent traffic volumes at less than roadway capacity, while LOS "F" represents locations over capacity and/or experiencing significant delays. These conditions are generally described in Table 3. Table 3. General Level of Service Definitions A Description of Traffic Conditions Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection LOS A represents free -flow travel with excellent levels of comfort and convenience and the freedom to maneuver. <_10.0 <_10.0 B LOS B has stable operating conditions, but the presence of other road users causes a noticeable, though slight, reduction in comfort, convenience, and maneuvering freedom. >10.0 and 520.0 >10.0 and 515.0 C LOS C has stable operating conditions, but the operation of individual users is substantially affected by the interaction with others in the traffic stream. >20.0 and 535.0 >15.0 and 525.0 D LOS D represents high -density, but stable flow. Users experience severe restriction in speed and freedom to maneuver, with poor levels of comfort and convenience. >35.0 and 555.0 >25.0 and 535.0 E LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver is difficult with users experiencing frustration and poor comfort and convenience. Unstable operation is frequent, and minor disturbances in traffic flow can cause breakdown conditions. >55.0 and 580.0 >35.0 and 550.0 F LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown conditions. This condition exists wherever the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Long queues can form behind these bottleneck points with queued traffic traveling in a stop -and - go fashion. >80.0 >50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual Intersection Operations To ascertain the existing traffic conditions, traffic operations were evaluated at the twenty-two study intersections. Level of service (LOS) was determined for each intersection for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions (2024 conditions without the project) • Near -Term No Project (Estimate of conditions in 2028 without the Project) • Near -Term Plus Project (Conditions in 2028 plus just the residential portion of the Project) • Cumulative (2040) No Project (Based on the City of Dublin travel demand model) • Cumulative (2040) Plus Project (2040 conditions plus full buildout of the Project) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 9 202 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Intersection operations were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7' Edition methodologies as implemented by the Vistro software program. The HCM 7' Edition procedure calculates a weighted average stop delay in seconds per vehicle at an intersection and assigns a level of service designation based on the delay. Based on the City of Dublin's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2021), the following criteria were used to determine whether the Project resulted in a significant effect on the local transportation system. Signalized Intersections: ► At a study, signalized intersection which is located outside the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, the project would cause the motor vehicle LOS to degrade to worse than LOS D (i.e., LOS E or F); ► At a study, signalized intersection which is located within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, the project would cause the motor vehicle (LOS to degrade to worse than LOS E (i.e., LOS F); ► At a study, signalized intersection which is located outside the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS E, the project would cause the total intersection average vehicle delay to increase by six (6) seconds or more; or ► At a study, signalized intersection for all areas where the level of service is LOS F, the project would cause: (a) the overall volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio to increase 0.03 or more; or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to increase by 0.05 or more. ► For intersections located along routes of regional significance, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan identifies LOS E or better as the standard for the Multimodal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO) related to intersection LOS. Routes of regional significance in the study area include: o Dublin Boulevard o Tassajara Road o Fallon Road o North Canyons Parkway o Jack London Boulevard Unsignalized Intersections ► At a study, unsignalized intersection which is located outside the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, the project would cause the motor vehicle LOS to degrade to worse than LOS D (i.e., LOS E or F) and after project completion satisfy the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) peak hour traffic signal warrant; ► At a study, unsignalized intersection which is located within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, the project would cause the motor vehicle LOS to degrade to worse than LOS E (i.e., LOS F) and after project completion satisfy the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) peak hour traffic signal warrant; or ► At a study, unsignalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is operating below the LOS threshold, the project would add ten (10) or more vehicles to the critical movement and after project completion satisfy the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) peak hour traffic signal warrant. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10 203 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Existing Conditions Based on the existing intersection count data, intersection geometry (Appendix B), and signal timing sheets, the existing traffic operations at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hours were calculated and reported in Table 4. Appendix C contains the detailed output sheets from the analysis software documenting these findings. As shown, all intersections operate at LOS D or better. Table 4 Existing Operations - Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours 1 �tersect'• • ExistingA De xisting PM Delay LOS D Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard 0.35 43.5 D 0.40 38.7 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.58 28.1 C 0.48 27.9 C 3 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.48 31.8 C 0.67 37.0 D 4 Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.59 13.2 B 0.63 11.1 B 5 Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.73 31.4 C 0.81 33.2 C 6 Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 0.64 21.9 C 0.39 15.2 B 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 0.78 22.1 C 0.50 9.3 A 8 Fallon Road & Central Parkway 0.57 31.9 C 0.36 20.9 C 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.53 20.1 C 0.48 21.4 C 10 Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 0.53 13.3 B 0.59 13.0 B 11 Fallon Road & I-580 WB Ramps 0.77 8.2 A 0.54 17.1 B 12 El Charro Road & 1-580 EB Ramps 0.39 6.8 A 0.54 6.9 A 13 El Charro Road & Jack London Boulevard 0.29 10.5 B 0.69 11.3 B 14 Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 0.76 31.0 C 0.26 11.1 B 15 Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 0.36 11.0 B 0.15 8.0 A 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 0.27 13.7 B 0.46 16.4 B 17 Airway Boulevard & I-580 WB Ramps 0.22 9.8 A 0.21 10.1 B 18 Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway N/A N/A 19 Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) N/A N/A 20 Croak Road & Central Parkway N/A N/A 21 Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) N/A N/A 22 Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard N/A N/A Source. Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7h Edition Methodologies Notes: Delay in seconds; Grey highlighted cells indicate operations below the LOS standard; N/A indicated intersection does not exist under the analysis scenario. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11 204 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Near -Term Conditions Near -term conditions represent background traffic growth to the year 2028. These volumes were derived based on an interpolation of the city of Dublin's travel demand model outputs for the years 2020 and 2040. The transportation network and signal timing were kept the same as existing conditions. The resulting intersection operations are shown in Table 5. All study intersections were found to operate at LOS D or better. Near -term lane configurations and traffic volumes are provided in Appendix D. Appendix E provides the detailed output sheets for near -term conditions. Table 5 Near -Term Operations - Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours A Delay 1 Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard 0.39 41.8 D 0.47 39.7 D 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.59 28.3 C 0.55 32.0 C 3 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.60 39.5 D 0.84 51.5 D 4 Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.63 13.4 B 0.67 11.5 B 5 Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.75 32.5 C 0.85 35.0 D 6 Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 0.67 22.8 C 0.43 15.6 B 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 0.86 31.3 C 0.56 10.7 B 8 Fallon Road & Central Parkway 0.57 32.1 C 0.40 21.2 C 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.55 23.2 C 0.68 34.2 C 10 Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 0.53 13.1 B 0.63 13.4 B 11 Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.75 8.7 A 0.59 24.5 C 12 El Charro Road & 1-580 EB Ramps 0.43 6.8 A 0.60 7.2 A 13 El Charro Road &Jack London Boulevard 0.42 13.8 B 0.72 13.9 B 14 Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 0.76 31.6 C 0.26 11.2 B 15 Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 0.36 11.0 B 0.15 8.0 A 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 0.44 17.8 B 0.62 25.1 C 17 Airway Boulevard & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.25 13.5 B 0.25 9.0 A 18 Dublin Boulevard &CommercialAccess Driveway N/A N/A 19 Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) N/A N/A 20 Croak Road & Central Parkway N/A N/A 21 Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) N/A N/A 22 Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard N/A N/A Source. Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7" Edition Methodologies Notes: Delay in seconds; Grey highlighted cells indicate operations below the LOS standard; N/A indicated intersection does not exist under the analysis scenario. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12 205 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Near -Term Plus Project Conditions Near -term plus project conditions were developed to determine the effect that the residential component of the project will have on the transportation system under opening year conditions. The analysis assumes the transportation network would remain the same as today with the two residential parcels being accessed by Central Parkway. This analysis analyzed two project driveway intersections (#19 & #21) and assumes the intersection of Croak Road and Central Parkway would be constructed but would only be used by Project traffic. The lane configuration and volumes are provided in Appendix F while Appendix G has the detailed operational output sheets. Appendix L shows the change in traffic volumes between the near term no project and plus project scenarios. Two project driveways would be needed in the near term with project scenario to provide access to the two residential parcels with one accessed off Pandora Way and the second accessed from Croak Road. The lane configuration and traffic control assumed for these two intersections is shown below. As shown, the access for parcel 7 was assumed to be all -way stop control. This was assumed since the project is proposing a connection where Pino Grande Road curves to meet Pandora Way. All -way stop presents a conservative analysis of intersection operations for this access location and improved safety given the roadway curvature. Parcel 8 is proposed to be side street stop controlled. Pandora Way & Parcel 7 Croak Road & Parcel 8 A summary of the intersection operations compared to the no project conditions are shown in Table 6 and Table 7 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. As shown, the residential component of the Project has limited effect on intersection operations and all intersections operate at or better than their respective LOS standard. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13 206 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table 6: Near -Term Operations AM Peak Hour with and without the Project 1 'ntersectio Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard Near 0.39 -Term AM Delay 41.8 LOS D Near V/C 0.39 -Term AM Delay 41.9 PP LOS D 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.59 28.3 C 0.59 28.4 C 3 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.60 39.5 D 0.60 40.0 D 4 Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.63 13.4 B 0.63 13.4 B 5 Santa Rita Rd & I-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.75 32.5 C 0.75 32.5 C 6 Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 0.67 22.8 C 0.67 22.8 C 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 0.86 31.3 C 0.86 31.7 C 8 Fallon Road & Central Parkway 0.57 32.1 C 0.61 34.1 C 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.55 23.2 C 0.57 23.4 C 10 Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 0.53 13.1 B 0.54 13.5 B 11 Fallon Road & I-580 WB Ramps 0.75 8.7 A 0.78 9.0 A 12 El Charro Road & I-580 EB Ramps 0.43 6.8 A 0.44 6.8 A 13 El Charro Road & Jack London Boulevard 0.42 13.8 B 0.42 13.8 B 14 Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 0.76 31.6 C 0.86 42.5 D 15 Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 0.36 11.0 B 0.47 13.3 B 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 0.44 17.8 B 0.44 17.9 B 17 Airway Boulevard & I-580 WB Ramps 0.25 13.5 B 0.25 13.4 B 18 Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway N/A N/A 19 Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) N/A 0.06 7.1 A 20 Croak Road & Central Parkway N/A 0.06 7.9 A 21 Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) N/A 0.04 8.5 A 22 Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard N/A N/A Source. Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition Methodologies Notes: Delay in seconds; Grey highlighted cells indicate operations below the LOS standard; N/A indicated intersection does not exist under the analysis scenario. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14 207 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table 7: Near -Term Operations PM Peak Hour with and without the Project ntersection Near -Term PM Delay 39.7 LOS D Near V/C 0.47 -Term PM Delay 40.2 PP LOS D 1 Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard 0.47 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.55 32.0 C 0.55 32.0 C 3 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.84 51.5 D 0.85 53.0 D 4 Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.67 11.5 B 0.68 11.7 B 5 Santa Rita Rd & I-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.85 35.0 D 0.85 35.2 D 6 Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 0.43 15.6 B 0.43 15.6 B 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 0.56 10.7 B 0.56 10.7 B 8 Fallon Road & Central Parkway 0.40 21.2 C 0.41 21.5 C 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.68 34.2 C 0.68 34.2 C 10 Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 0.63 13.4 B 0.63 13.3 B 11 Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.59 24.5 C 0.59 26.5 C 12 El Charro Road & I-580 EB Ramps 0.60 7.2 A 0.61 7.2 A 13 El Charro Road & Jack London Boulevard 0.72 13.9 B 0.72 13.9 B 14 Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 0.26 11.2 B 0.31 11.2 B 15 Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 0.15 8.0 A 0.18 8.3 A 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 0.62 25.1 C 0.62 25.1 C 17 Airway Boulevard & I-580 WB Ramps 0.25 9.0 A 0.25 9.0 A 18 Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway N/A N/A 19 Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) N/A 0.06 7.1 A 20 Croak Road & Central Parkway N/A 0.04 7.1 A 21 Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) N/A 0.01 8.4 A 22 Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard N/A N/A Source. Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition Methodologies Notes: Delay in seconds; Grey highlighted cells indicate operations below the LOS standard; N/A indicated intersection does not exist under the analysis scenario. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15 208 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Cumulative Conditions Cumulative conditions assesses whether the Project will have significant effects to the transportation network in the year 2040 which is the current horizon year for the city of Dublin travel demand model. Cumulative no project conditions analyze the operations of the study intersections in 2040 based on changes to the transportation network and travel demand growth from land use changes between today and 2040. Cumulative lane configurations and traffic volumes are provided in Appendix H. Appendix I provides the detailed output sheets for Cumulative conditions. Key changes to the transportation network affecting the study intersections are related to Dublin Boulevard which is proposed to be extended from Fallon Road east to North Canyons Parkway. This extension will also result in the extension of Croak Road to connect Central Parkway with the Dublin Boulevard extension. Finally, Fallon Road is assumed to be widened to four through lanes in each direction between the 1-580 WB Off -Ramp and Central Parkway consistent with the plan line study. The effects on lane configuration are detailed below comparing existing and cumulative conditions. ► Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (#9) — Based on discussions with the city of Dublin, the current 65% design plans for the Dublin Boulevard extension, and the Fallon Road plan line, this intersection will be reconfigured as shown below. 7+ C.) Existing Conditions ► Fallon Road and Fallon Gateway (#10) — Based on discussions with the city of Dublin and considering the Fallon Road plan line study, this intersection will be reconfigured as shown below. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 16 209 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project ► Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway (#16) — As part of the Dublin Boulevard extension project, this intersection will be reconfigured as shown below. ► Croak Road & Central Parkway (#20) — As part of planned roadway changes in the future, this intersection will provide access to new housing development off Central Parkway and be part of the Croak Road connection between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. The intersection is assumed to be configured as shown below. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17 210 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project ► Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard (#22) — As part of planned roadway changes in the future, this intersection will connect Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard via Croak Road. The intersection is assumed to be configured as shown below. The operations of the study intersections under cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 8. Four intersections are anticipated to operate below their respective LOS standard. These intersections include: ► Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard is projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours which is below the LOS E standard for intersections on routes of regional significance. ► Fallon Road & Positano Parkway is projected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour which is below the LOS E standard for intersections on routes of regional significance. ► Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway is projected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour which is below the LOS E standard for intersections on routes of regional significance. ► Airway Boulevard & 1-580 WB Ramp is projected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour which is below the LOS D standard for signalized intersections not on routes of regional significance. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18 211 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table 8 Cumulative Operations - Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hours 1 ant �cPcrien _im Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard n Cumulat Delay LOS 0.57 64.8 E 0.67 46.0 D 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.64 29.3 C 0.78 48.7 D 3 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 1.19 178.7 F 1.35 144.3 F 4 Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.76 15.2 B 0.81 15.5 B 5 Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.81 36.4 D 0.97 48.3 D 6 Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 0.73 26.7 C 0.52 18.0 B 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 1.09 94.2 F 0.71 16.6 B 8 Fallon Road & Central Parkway 0.59 32.8 C 0.61 25.8 C 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.70 43.7 D 0.74 48.1 D 10 Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 0.33 9.6 A 0.48 10.7 B 11 Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.71 13.5 B 0.75 61.5 E 12 El Charro Road & I-580 EB Ramps 0.69 7.5 A 0.79 8.5 A 13 El Charro Road &Jack London Boulevard 0.75 41.7 D 0.78 31.1 C 14 Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 0.79 33.4 C 0.26 11.4 B 15 Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 0.36 11.0 B 0.15 8.1 A 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 0.69 23.8 C 1.19 145.0 F 17 Airway Boulevard & I-580 WB Ramps 0.47 64.2 E 0.36 7.9 A 18 Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway N/A N/A 19 Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) N/A N/A 20 Croak Road & Central Parkway 0.50 11.6 B 0.59 13.5 B 21 Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) N/A N/A 22 Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.62 21.1 C 0.64 18.8 B Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7" Edition Methodologies Notes: Delay in seconds; Grey highlighted cells indicate operations below the LOS standard; N/A indicated intersection does not exist under the analysis scenario. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 19 212 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Cumulative Plus Project Conditions The cumulative plus project analysis estimates the effect of the full Project on conditions in 2040. The Project was coded into the travel demand model due to its size and potential to change non -project travel patterns in the vicinity. Lane configurations were similar to the no project cumulative conditions but there were three additional intersections added including one for each residential partial (also modeled for the near -term plus project conditions) and an access point for the industrial development that was added between Fallon Road and Croak Road along the Dublin Boulevard extension. There are no site plans for any component of the Project except the residential parcels. Kittelson has assumed that the office, retail, and hotel components of the Project will be accessed via the Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway intersections. No access is assumed at this intersection for the approximately 2.9 million square feet of advanced manufacturing space. These land uses are all assumed to have access to either the Dublin Boulevard extension or Croak Road. Lane configurations assumed in this analysis for the access points into the non-residential portions of the Project are shown below. The residential access points would remain the same as shown in the near -term plus project conditions. 10 ..) L. r, SDI ( 5 Access 18 Project ..) iii„.... Project Access k Access t ry Fallon -Nrr Road & Fallon Gateway Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Full between Fallon Road and Croak Road 22 - --- 1 4 '� I Project Acces Dublin Boulevard & Croak Road The lane configuration and volumes are provided in Appendix J while Appendix K has the detailed operational output sheets. Appendix M shows the change in traffic volumes between the near term no project and plus project scenarios. A summary of the intersection operations compared to the no project Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 20 213 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project conditions are shown in Table 9 and Table 10 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Key findings from the cumulative plus project evaluation include: ► Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard (#3) is projected to operate at LOS F with and without the Project under cumulative conditions. However, the Projects effect on traffic volumes in the area result in enough of a change that the Project improves intersection operations at this location in both the AM and PM peak hour. No recommendations for improvement are proposed at this location since the operations are improving. ► Fallon Road & Positano Parkway (#7) is projected to fail in the AM peak hour for the cumulative no project scenario. The redistribution of vehicles as a result of the Project resulted in the intersection improving to LOS E for the AM peak hour which meets the LOS E standard for intersections on routes of regional significance. No recommendations for improvement are proposed at this location since the Project results in an improvement to operations at the intersection where it will meet the LOS standard. ► Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard (#9) is projected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F in the PM peak hour as a result of the Project. Recommendations for improvement at this location are detailed in the next section of the report. ► Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps (#11) is projected to deteriorate to LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours as a result of the Project. While there are plans to improve the interchange of Fallon Road and 1-580, this analysis has assumed there are no changes to present a conservative case. Recommendations for improvement at this location are detailed in the next section of the report. ► Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway (#16) is projected to fail in the PM peak hour for the cumulative no project scenario. The redistribution of vehicles as a result of the Project resulted in reduced delay at the intersection. No recommendations for improvement are proposed at this location since the Project results in an improvement to operations at the intersection. ► Airway Boulevard & 1-580 WB Ramp (#17) is projected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under cumulative no project conditions. The redistribution of vehicles as a result of the Project will improve the intersection to LOS D. No recommendations for improvement are proposed at this location since the Project results in an improvement to operations. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 21 214 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table 9: Cumulative Operations AM Peak Hour with and without the Project Intersection Cumulative AM Delay cumulative A Delay Li 1 Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard 0.57 64.8 E 0.56 56.7 E 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.64 29.3 C 0.64 29.1 C 3 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 1.19 178.7 F 1.20 166.8 F 4 Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.76 15.2 B 0.78 15.9 B 5 Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.81 36.4 D 0.81 36.3 D 6 Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 0.73 26.7 C 0.70 26.4 C 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 1.09 94.2 F 1.05 75.0 E 8 Fallon Road & Central Parkway 0.59 32.8 C 0.66 42.9 D 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.70 43.7 D 0.80 45.0 D 10 Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 0.33 9.6 A 0.43 15.8 B 11 Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.71 13.5 B 1.06 179.5 F 12 El Charro Road & I-580 EB Ramps 0.69 7.5 A 0.84 10.1 B 13 El Charro Road &Jack London Boulevard 0.75 41.7 D 0.87 76.7 E 14 Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 0.79 33.4 C 0.79 34.4 C 15 Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 0.36 11.0 B 0.38 12.0 B 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 0.69 23.8 C 0.73 25.1 C 17 Airway Boulevard & I-580 WB Ramps 0.47 64.2 E 0.48 42.7 D 18 Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway N/A 0.65 33.8 C 19 Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) N/A 0.06 7.1 A 20 Croak Road & Central Parkway 0.50 11.6 B 0.51 11.8 B 21 Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) N/A 0.06 10.4 B 22 Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.62 21.1 C 0.65 36.0 D Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7" Edition Methodologies Notes: Delay in seconds; Grey highlighted cells indicate operations below the LOS standard; N/A indicated intersection does not exist under the analysis scenario. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22 215 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table 10: Cumulative Operations PM Peak Hour with and without the Project Intersection Cumulative PM Dela cumulative P De 1 Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard 0.67 46.0 D 0.68 44.5 D 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.78 48.7 D 0.76 45.1 D 3 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 1.35 144.3 F 1.33 133.1 F 4 Tassajara Road & 1-580 WB Ramps 0.81 15.5 B 0.82 16.7 B 5 Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.97 48.3 D 0.97 45.6 D 6 Tassajara Road & Fallon Road 0.52 18.0 B 0.49 17.1 B 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 0.71 16.6 B 0.71 15.1 B 8 Fallon Road & Central Parkway 0.61 25.8 C 0.62 26.3 C 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.74 48.1 D 0.89 83.4 F 10 Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway 0.48 10.7 B 0.73 42.4 D 11 Fallon Road & I-580 WB Ramps 0.75 61.5 E 1.20 113.4 F 12 El Charro Road & 1-580 EB Ramps 0.79 8.5 A 0.83 8.5 A 13 El Charro Road &Jack London Boulevard 0.78 31.1 C 0.80 38.6 D 14 Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive 0.26 11.4 B 0.29 11.8 B 15 Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road 0.15 8.1 A 0.15 8.2 A 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 1.19 145.0 F 1.15 142.7 F 17 Airway Boulevard & I-580 WB Ramps 0.36 7.9 A 0.38 9.2 A 18 Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway N/A 0.95 54.9 D 19 Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) N/A 0.06 7.1 A 20 Croak Road & Central Parkway 0.59 13.5 B 0.61 14.0 B 21 Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) N/A 0.02 10.4 B 22 Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.64 18.8 B 0.85 44.6 D Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7" Edition Methodologies Notes: Delay in seconds; Grey highlighted cells indicate operations below the LOS standard; N/A indicated intersection does not exist under the analysis scenario. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23 216 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project 95th Percentile Queue In addition to an assessment of intersection operations, 95th percentile queues were assessed for each of the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Comparisons between the estimated queue storage and estimated queue length are shown in Table 11 and Table 12. Queues shown in these tables are reported in feet and rounded up to the nearest 5 foot increment. Grey highlighted cells indicate where 95th percentile queues are estimated to exceed the available queue storage. Potential recommendations to address queues are provided when the Project causes the queue to exceed the available storage, or the Project increases the queue for a movement already exceeding the storage by 25 feet (one vehicle) or more. The following intersections and movements were found to meet these criteria: ► Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard (#1) o The Project causes the NBL turn lane to exceed the available storage by 5 feet under cumulative conditions in the PM peak hour. ► Tassajara Road & Central Parkway (#2) o The Project causes the EBR turn lane, which already exceeds the available storage under cumulative conditions in the PM peak hour, to increase from 275 feet to 355 feet. ► Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard (#3) o The Project causes the NBR turn lane, which is already exceeding the available storage, to increase from approximately 1,810 feet to 2,170 feet under cumulative plus project conditions in the AM peak hour. o The Project causes the NBR turn lane, which is already exceeding the available storage, to increase from approximately 1,200 feet to 1,260 feet under near -term plus project conditions in the PM peak hour. ► Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr (#5) o The Project causes the SBL turn lane, which is already exceeding the available storage, to increase from approximately 440 feet to 500 feet under cumulative plus project conditions in the PM peak hour. ► Fallon Road & Positano Parkway (#7) o The Project causes the NBR turn lane to exceed the available storage by 10 feet under cumulative conditions in the PM peak hour. ► Fallon Road & Central Parkway (#8) o The Project causes the WBL turn lane to increase from 200 feet to 255 feet (approximately two vehicles) under near -term plus project conditions in the AM peak hour. This causes the WBL turn movement to exceed the available 200 foot storage. ► Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard (#9) o The Project causes the southbound right turn lane, which is already exceeding the available storage under cumulative no project conditions in the AM peak hour and PM peak hours, to increase from 355 feet to 530 feet in the AM and 195 feet to 350 feet in the PM. o The Project causes the SBL turn lane, which already exceeds the available storage under cumulative PM conditions, to extend from 210 feet to 390 feet. ► Fallon Road & I-580 WB Ramps (#11) o The Project causes the SBR turn lane to exceed the available storage by more than 1,500 feet in the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24 217 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project ► Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway (#16) o The Project causes the westbound left turn, which is already exceeding the available storage under cumulative conditions in the AM peak hour, to increase from 280 feet to 310 feet. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 25 218 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Table 11: AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue in Feet Dublin Fallon 580 Project AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Intersection 1: Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard Queues in Feet (Rounded Up to Storage Nearest 5 Feet 11101 250 300 250 WBL 275 - 380 300 220 Existing 130 120 15 110 75 60 175 - Near -Term 145 120 15 125 75 75 240 - Near -Term Plus Project 145 120 15 125 75 75 250 - Cumulative 195 120 15 170 75 105 740 - Cumulative Plus Project 205 125 15 115 75 95 625 - Intersection 2: Tassajara Road & Central Parkway Storage 325 325 300 215 225 225 300 - Existing 50 55 25 70 150 95 170 - Near -Term 55 60 25 75 150 95 170 - Near -Term Plus Project 55 60 25 75 150 95 170 - Cumulative 60 75 35 100 150 95 170 - Cumulative Plus Project 50 70 30 80 150 95 170 - Intersection 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard Storage 380 250 295 290 265 330 395 - Existing 90 270 25 55 55 60 190 - Near -Term 115 465 35 65 65 60 220 - Near -Term Plus Project 120 470 35 70 65 60 225 - Cumulative 165 1810 60 85 70 60 260 - Cumulative Plus Project 185 2170 65 95 70 60 230 - Intersection 4: Tassajara Road & I-580 WB Ramps Storage - - - - - - 1325 1325 Existing 205 110 Near -Term - - - - - - 205 110 Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - 205 110 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 26 219 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project aAM Peak Hour 95th Percentile ■ Intersection Queues in Feet (Rounded Up to Cumulative Nearest NBL - 5 Feet) NBR - SBL - SBR - EBL - EBR - WBL 205 WBR 115 Cumulative Plus Project - - - - - - 205 115 Intersection 5: Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr Storage - - 425 - 625 - 200 250 Existing - - 240 - 410 - 105 185 Near -Term - - 240 - 440 - 105 185 Near -Term Plus Project - - 240 - 440 - 105 185 Cumulative - - 240 - 555 - 105 190 Cumulative Plus Project - - 240 - 550 - 105 195 Intersection 6: Tassajara Road & Fallon Road Storage 175 175 175 225 475 175 100 100 Existing 180 5 5 175 85 175 20 10 Near -Term 200 10 5 210 100 190 20 10 Near -Term Plus Project 200 10 5 210 100 190 20 10 Cumulative 260 10 5 320 160 240 25 20 Cumulative Plus Project 250 10 5 275 150 230 30 15 Intersection 7: Fallon Road & Positano Parkway Storage - 225 335 - - - 360 450 Existing - 150 290 - - - 175 345 Near -Term - 155 315 - - - 185 615 Near -Term Plus Project - 155 315 - - - 185 625 Cumulative - 170 375 - - - 200 2075 Cumulative Plus Project - 160 395 - - - 215 1765 Intersection 8: Fallon Road & Central Parkway Storage 300 255 295 245 350 230 250 250 Existing 35 160 105 60 35 50 200 85 Near -Term 40 160 105 65 40 50 200 85 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 27 220 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues in Feet (Rounded Up to Nearest NBL 5 Feet) ;R Intersection Near -Term Plus Project 40 185 110 70 40 55 255 95 Cumulative 50 160 110 75 45 105 205 85 Cumulative Plus Project 50 170 110 75 45 130 210 90 Intersection 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard Storage 430 - 140 225 400 400 - - Existing 190 80 0 100 115 145 0 0 Near -Term 200 115 5 135 115 140 15 45 Near -Term Plus Project 210 115 5 150 115 140 15 45 Cumulative 195 135 15 355 135 90 10 295 Cumulative Plus Project 175 625 105 530 135 105 10 315 Intersection 10: Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway Storage 275 - - - 210 210 - - Existing 60 - - - 10 25 - - Near -Term 60 - - - 10 25 - - Near -Term Plus Project 60 - - - 10 25 - - Cumulative 55 - - - 10 20 - - Cumulative Plus Project 75 - 90 - 10 40 30 25 Intersection 11: Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps Storage - - - 225 - - 1550 1550 Existing - - - 75 - - 35 40 Near -Term - - - 85 - - 40 50 Near -Term Plus Project - - - 100 - - 45 50 Cumulative - - - 145 - - 65 95 Cumulative Plus Project - - - 180 - - 85 130 Intersection 12: El Charro Road & I-580 EB Ramps Storage - - - - 605 605 - - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 28 221 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues in Feet (Rounded Up to Existing Nearest NBL - 5 Feet) NBR - - - 25 20 WBL - WBR - Near -Term - - - - 25 25 - - Near -Term Plus Project - - - - 25 25 - - Cumulative - - - - 25 35 - - Cumulative Plus Project - - - - 100 40 - - Intersection 13: El Charro Road &Jack London Boulevard Storage 125 - 650 450 450 325 400 775 Existing 5 - 30 15 25 5 10 25 Near -Term 15 - 35 35 35 5 25 45 Near -Term Plus Project 20 - 35 35 35 5 25 50 Cumulative 100 - 75 185 95 25 125 210 Cumulative Plus Project 120 - 75 200 110 25 120 230 Intersection 14: Central Parkway & Sunset View Drive Storage 250 250 100 100 225 800 150 - Existing 200 20 30 225 65 245 25 - Near -Term 205 25 30 230 65 250 30 - Near -Term Plus Project 225 25 30 285 70 235 30 - Cumulative 220 25 30 240 65 275 30 - Cumulative Plus Project 225 25 30 245 65 275 50 - Intersection 15: Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road Storage - - - 100 275 - 100 - Existing - - - 5 5 - 0 - Near -Term - - - 5 5 - 0 - Near -Term Plus Project - - - 5 5 - 0 - Cumulative - - - 5 5 - 0 - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 29 222 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues in Feet (Rounded Up to Nearest NBL 5 Feet) NBR�---- Cumulative Plus Project - - 5 5 5 Intersection 16: Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway Storage 535 535 - - - 500 110 - Existing 165 55 - - - 70 70 - Near -Term 335 65 - - - 100 130 - Near -Term Plus Project 335 65 - - - 100 130 - Cumulative 420 105 - - - 190 280 - Cumulative Plus Project 435 120 - - - 220 310 - Intersection 17: Airway Boulevard & 1-580 WB Ramps Storage - - - - - - 1400 1400 Existing - - - - - - 35 75 Near -Term - - - - - - 30 150 Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - 30 150 Cumulative - - - - - - 30 725 Cumulative Plus Project - - - - - - 35 565 Intersection 18: Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway Storage - - - - - - - - Existing - - - - - - - - Near -Term - - - - - - - - Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - - - Cumulative - - - - - - - - Cumulative Plus Project 80 - 25 35 270 415 0 - Intersection 19: Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) Storage - - - - - - - - Existing - - - - - - - - Near -Term - - - - - - - - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 30 223 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues in Feet (Rounded Up to Near -Term Plus Project Nearest NBL - 5 Feet) NBR - A - ip - EBR - WBL - WBR - Cumulative - - - - - - - - Cumulative Plus Project - - - - - - - - Intersection 20: Croak Road & Central Parkway Storage - - - - - - - - Existing - - - - - - - - Near -Term - - - - - - - - Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - - - Cumulative - - - - - - - - Cumulative Plus Project - - - - - - - - Intersection 21: Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel 8) Storage - - - - - - - - Existing - - - - - - - - Near -Term - - - - - - - - Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - - - Cumulative - - - - - - - - Cumulative Plus Project - - - - - - - - Intersection 22: Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard Storage - - - - - - - - Existing - - - - - - - - Near -Term - - - - - - - - Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - - - Cumulative 0 - 105 - 0 0 0 10 Cumulative Plus Project 45 - 120 - 205 120 380 55 Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7" Edition Methodologies Notes: Queues in feet rounded up to nearest 5 foot increment; Grey highlighted cells indicate 95' percentile queues exceeding the available storage; "-" indicates turn pocket does not exist. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 31 224 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table 12: PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queue in Feet PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersectigiiia Intersection 1: Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard Queues in Feet (Rounded Up Storage to Nearest NBL 250 5 Feet) NBR 380 SBL 300 SBR 220 EBL 300 EBR 250 WBL 275 WBR - Existing 90 210 55 100 105 70 145 - Near -Term 125 215 55 95 140 115 160 - Near -Term Plus Project 130 225 55 95 140 135 175 - Cumulative 220 210 55 80 280 310 200 - Cumulative Plus Project 255 245 55 80 200 330 225 - Intersection 2: Tassajara Road & Central Parkway Storage 325 325 300 215 225 225 300 - Existing 110 130 35 35 115 160 120 - Near -Term 110 160 40 35 115 200 135 - Near -Term Plus Project 110 160 40 35 115 200 135 - Cumulative 110 240 55 50 115 275 175 - Cumulative Plus Project 115 230 45 50 115 355 170 - Intersection 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard Storage 380 250 295 290 265 330 395 - Existing 120 555 50 60 160 205 170 - Near -Term 125 1200 90 65 165 205 220 - Near -Term Plus Project 125 1260 90 65 165 205 220 - Cumulative 140 3830 230 75 190 215 430 - Cumulative Plus Project 145 3665 225 90 195 225 430 - Intersection 4: Tassajara Road & I-580 WB Ramps Storage - - - - - - 1325 1325 Existing - - - - - - 160 75 Near -Term _ _ - _ - - 160 75 Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - 160 75 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 32 225 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project PM Peak Hour 95`h Percentile Queues in Feet (Rounded Up Cumulative to Nearest NBL _ 5 Feet) NBR _ SBL - SBR - EBL - Intersection 1 - I 160 e 80 Cumulative Plus Project _ _ _ - - - 200 95 Intersection 5: Santa Rita Rd & I-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr Storage - - 425 - 625 - 200 250 Existing - - 380 - 315 - 85 245 Near -Term - - 390 - 340 - 85 245 Near -Term Plus Project - - 390 - 345 - 85 245 Cumulative - - 440 - 425 - 85 245 Cumulative Plus Project _ - 500 - 465 - 85 245 Intersection 6: Tassajara Road & Fallon Road Storage 175 175 175 225 475 175 100 100 Existing 30 10 5 70 85 25 5 5 Near -Term 30 10 5 75 100 25 5 5 Near -Term Plus Project 30 10 5 75 105 25 5 5 Cumulative 35 10 10 100 170 35 5 10 Cumulative Plus Project 35 10 10 95 145 30 5 5 Intersection 7: Fallon Road & Positano Parkway Storage - 225 335 - - - - - Existing - 90 40 - - - 45 35 Near -Term - 110 75 - - - 60 40 Near -Term Plus Project - 110 75 - - - 60 40 Cumulative - 200 270 - - - 120 60 Cumulative Plus Project - 235 205 - - - 95 110 Intersection 8: Fallon Road & Central Parkway Storage 300 255 295 245 350 230 250 250 Existing 50 90 25 65 40 40 65 25 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 33 226 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project PM Peak Hour 95`h Percentile Intersection Queues in Feet (Rounded Up Near -Term to Nearest NBL 50 5 F NBR 90 EBR 55 WBL 65 30 70 EBL 40 25 Near -Term Plus Project 50 145 30 70 40 60 75 30 Cumulative 60 110 35 85 55 265 85 30 Cumulative Plus Project 75 125 35 80 80 270 95 30 Intersection 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard Storage 430 - 140 225 400 400 - - Existing 125 165 0 80 185 245 0 0 Near -Term 175 335 0 125 185 195 0 0 Near -Term Plus Project 175 355 0 130 200 195 0 0 Cumulative 240 75 210 195 215 170 115 50 Cumulative Plus Project 350 340 390 350 295 285 795 250 Intersection 10: Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway Storage 275 - - - 210 210 - - Existing 90 - - - 20 65 - - Near -Term 100 - - - 20 75 - - Near -Term Plus Project 100 - - - 20 75 - - Cumulative 110 - - - 25 80 - - Cumulative Plus Project 145 - 215 - 35 160 450 105 Intersection 11: Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps Storage - - - 225 - - 1550 1550 Existing - - - 170 - - 85 155 Near -Term - - - 190 - - 110 170 Near -Term Plus Project _ - - 200 - - 110 170 Cumulative - - _ 220 - - 170 170 Cumulative Plus Project - - - 1985 - - 140 190 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 34 227 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project PM Peak Hour 95`h Percentile Intersection Intersection 12: El Charro Road & I-580 EB Ramps Queues in Feet (Rounded Up Storage to Nearest NBL - 5 Feet) NBR - SBL - SBR - EBL 605 EBR 605 WBL - WBR - Existing - - - - 30 25 - - Near -Term - - - - 30 30 - - Near -Term Plus Project _ _ - - 30 30 - - Cumulative - - - - 40 45 - - Cumulative Plus Project _ _ - - 55 40 - - Intersection 13: El Charro Road &Jack London Boulevard Storage 125 - 650 450 450 325 400 775 Existing 5 - 75 130 55 5 5 55 Near -Term 10 - 105 160 80 25 15 80 Near -Term Plus Project 10 - 105 160 80 25 15 80 Cumulative 80 - 320 380 255 190 80 190 Cumulative Plus Project 310 - 355 340 275 235 100 195 Intersection 14: Central Parkway& Sunset View Drive Storage 250 250 100 100 225 800 150 - Existing 5 5 5 20 25 5 0 - Near -Term 5 5 5 20 25 5 5 - Near -Term Plus Project 5 5 5 25 25 5 5 - Cumulative 5 5 5 20 25 10 5 - Cumulative Plus Project 10 5 5 25 25 5 10 - Intersection 15: Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road Storage - - - 100 275 - 100 - Existing - - - 5 5 - 0 - Near -Term - - - 5 5 - 0 - Near -Term Plus Project _ _ - 5 5 - 0 - Cumulative - - - 5 5 - 0 - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 35 228 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues in Feet (Rounded Up Cumulative Plus Project to Nearest NBL _ 5 Feet) NBR _ SBL _ SBR 5 EBL 5 EBR - WBL 5 WBR - Intersection Intersection 16: Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway Storage 535 535 - - - 500 110 - Existing 185 70 - - - 145 200 - Near -Term 190 150 - - - 310 275 - Near -Term Plus Project 190 150 - - - 310 275 - Cumulative 85 350 - - - 1705 920 - Cumulative Plus Project 120 360 - - - 1395 905 - Intersection 17: Airway Boulevard & I-580 WB Ramps Storage - - - - - - 1400 1400 Existing - - - - - - 30 100 Near -Term - - - - - - 35 105 Near -Term Plus Project _ _ _ _ - - 35 105 Cumulative - - - - - - 35 120 Cumulative Plus Project - - - - - - 35 140 Intersection 18: Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access Driveway Storage - - - - - - - - Existing - - - - - - - - Near -Term - - - - - - - - Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - - - Cumulative - - - - - - - - Cumulative Plus Project 545 - 95 365 145 180 0 - Intersection 19: Pandora Way & Residential Project Access Driveway (Parcel 7) Storage - - - - - - - - Existing - - - - - - - - Near -Term - - - - - - - - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 36 229 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project PM Peak Hour 95`h Percentile Queues in Feet (Rounded Up Near -Term Plus Project to Nearest NBL _ 5 Feet) NBR _ SBL _ SBR _ EBL _ EBR _ WBL _ WBR _ Intersection Cumulative _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cumulative Plus Project _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Intersection 20: Croak Road & Central Parkway Storage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Existing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Near -Term _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Near -Term Plus Project _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cumulative _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cumulative Plus Project _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Intersection 21: Croak Road & Project Access (Parcel8) Storage - - - - - - - - Existing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Near -Term _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Near -Term Plus Project - - - - - - - - Cumulative - - - - - - - - Cumulative Plus Project _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Intersection 22: Croak Road & Dublin Boulevard Storage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Existing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Near -Term _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Near -Term Plus Project - - _ - - - - - Cumulative 0 - 20 - 75 0 10 20 Cumulative Plus Project 365 - 105 - 210 45 195 55 Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on Highway Capacity Manual, 7h Edition Methodologies Notes: Queues in feet rounded up to nearest 5 foot increment; Grey highlighted cells indicate 95th percentile queues exceeding the available storage; "-" indicates turn pocket does not exist. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 37 230 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project CMP ASSESSMENT This section presents the findings of the Alameda CTC Land Use analysis under Existing Conditions and Cumulative Conditions with and without the Project. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Land Use analysis was performed to comply with its congestion management plan (CMP) Land Use Analysis Program. In the CMP, development projects generating more than 100 PM net new peak hour trips are analyzed to determine their effect on Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways. Since the Alameda CTC Land Use Analysis Program's 100-trip criteria is in the PM peak hour this analysis was evaluated in the PM peak hour only. The city of Dublin's travel demand model, which is a more refined version of the Alameda CTC travel demand model for Dublin, was used to determine the project's effect on V/C ratio for the base year (2020) and future year (2040) models. Kittelson used the model to determine volume, capacity, and V/C ratio for all Tier 1 and Tier 2 CMP segments in the city of Dublin located east of Interstate 680. This included the Interstate 580 freeway, Dublin Boulevard, Fallon Road, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, and Village Parkway. The findings of the CMP analysis using the city of Dublin's travel demand model for volume, capacity, an V/C ratio is shown in Table 13 and Table 14 for existing and 2040 conditions with and without project, respectively. Alameda CTC does not have an adopted threshold for determining when a CMP segment is affected by a land use analysis project. Past analyses within the city of Dublin have used the following criteria to assess CMP roadway segment effects: • For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC CMP Network, the project would cause (a) the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F or (b) the v/c ratio to increase by 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate at LOS F without the project. As shown in Table 13 and Table 14, some CMP segments were found to operate at LOS F. However, the Project did not result in any CMP segments deteriorating to LOS F or increase the V/C ratio for and intersection already at LOS F by 0.02 or more. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on CMP segments in the city of Dublin. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 38 231 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table 13: Analysis of CMP Segments for Existing Conditions CMP ID CMP Route From To #of Capacity Lanes (vphpl) Existing No Project Existing Plus Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C Volume (vph) LOS V/C Project Trips V/C F21 1-580 - EB 1-680 F22 1-580-EB Hopyard F23 1-580- EB Santa Rita F24 1-580 - EB El Charro F37 1-580 - WB SR 84/Airway Blvd F38 1-580 - WB Fallon Rd/El Charro F39 1-580 - WB Tassajara Rd T145 Dublin Blvd.-EB Village Parkway T146 Dublin Blvd.-EB Dougherty Rd T147 Dublin Blvd.-EB Hacienda Dr T334 Dublin Blvd.-EB Tassajara Road T231 Dublin Blvd.-WB Fallon Road T148 Dublin Blvd.-WB Tassajara Dr T149 Dublin Blvd.-WB Hacienda Dr T150 Dublin Blvd.-WB Dougherty Rd T239 Fallon Rd. -NB 1-580 T342 Fallon Rd.-SB Tassajara Road T156 Dougherty Road -NB WB I-580 OFF ramp T157 Dougherty Road -NB Amador Valley Blvd on SB Hopyard 6 13,200 10,063 D 0.76 10,104 D 0.77 41 0.00 Santa Rita 5 9,900 8,785 D 0.89 8,899 D 0.90 114 0.01 El Charro 5 9,900 9,368 E 0.95 9,389 E 0.95 21 0.00 SR 84/Airway Blvd. 5 9,900 10,170 F 1.03 10,184 F 1.03 14 0.00 Fallon Rd/El Charro 5 9,900 5,959 C 0.60 5,962 C 0.60 3 0.00 Tassajara 5 9,900 5,928 C 0.60 5,938 C 0.60 10 0.00 1-680 5 9,900 7,315 C 0.74 7,323 C 0.74 8 0.00 Dougherty Rd 3 3,300 887 A 0.27 896 A 0.27 9 0.00 Hacienda Dr 3 3,300 2,242 B 0.68 2,197 B 0.67 -45 -0.01 Tassajara Dr 3 3,300 2,979 D 0.90 2,941 D 0.89 -38 -0.01 Fallon Road 3 3,150 1,071 A 0.34 1,079 A 0.34 8 0.00 Tassajara Road 3 3,150 165 A 0.05 170 A 0.05 5 0.00 Hacienda Dr 3 3,300 233 A 0.07 237 A 0.07 4 0.00 Dougherty Rd 3 3,300 91 A 0.03 91 A 0.03 0 0.00 Village Parkway 3 3,300 541 A 0.16 540 A 0.16 -1 0.00 Tassajara Road 3 3,150 1,088 A 0.35 1,171 A 0.37 83 0.03 1-580 3 3,150 534 A 0.17 553 A 0.18 19 0.01 Amador Valley Blvd on SB 3 3,300 3,292 E 1.00 3,286 E 1.00 -6 0.00 Fallcreek Rd on SB/County Line 3 3,150 2,657 D 0.84 2,654 D 0.84 -3 0.00 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 39 232 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project CMP ID CMP Route From To # of Capacity Lanes (vphpl) Existing No Project Existing Plus Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C Volume (vph) LOS V/C Project A Trips V/C T158 Dougherty Road-SB Fallcreek Rd on SB/County Line Amador Valley Blvd on SB T159 Dougherty Road-SB Amador Valley Blvd on SB WB 1-580 OFF ramp T160 Tassajara Road -NB WB 1-580 OFF ramp Central Parkway 3 3,150 743 A 0.24 744 A 0.24 1 0.00 4 4,400 1,184 A 0.27 1,189 A 0.27 5 0.00 2 2,100 2,093 E 1.00 2,093 T161 Tassajara Road -NB Central Parkway Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr 2 2,100 1,373 B 0.65 1,380 T162 Tassajara Road -NB Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr Fallon Rd 1 1,050 625 A 0.60 627 A 0.60 2 0.00 T163 Tassajara Road -NB Fallon Rd County Line 1 1,050 833 C 0.79 837 C 0.80 4 0.00 T164 Tassajara Road-SB County Line Fallon Rd 1 1,050 450 A 0.43 452 A 0.43 2 0.00 T165 Tassajara Road-SB Fallon Rd Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr 1 1,050 283 A 0.27 282 A 0.27 -1 0.00 T166 Tassajara Road-SB Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr Central Parkway 2 2,100 485 A 0.23 488 A 0.23 3 0.00 T167 Tassajara Road-SB Central Parkway WB 1-580 OFF ramp 3 3,150 845 A 0.27 847 A 0.27 E 1.00 0 0.00 B 0.66 7 2 0.00 0.00 T291 Village Parkway - NB Dublin Boulevard County Line 2 2,100 649 A 0.31 646 A 0.31 -3 0.00 T394 Village Parkway - SB Dublin Boulevard County Line 2 2,100 445 A 0.21 440 A 0.21 -5 0.00 Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on CMP Segment information from the city of Dublin's Travel Demand Model Notes: Bolded text indicates LOS below the CMP standard; V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. Table 14: Analysis of CMP Segments for 2040 Conditions CMP ID CMP Route From To # of Capacity Lanes (vphpl) 2040 No Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C 2040 Plus Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C Project A Trips V/C F21 1-580-EB F22 1-580-EB 1-680 Hopyard Hopyard Santa Rita 6 13,500 10,242 D 0.76 10,193 D 0.76 -49 0.00 5 10,125 9,478 E 0.94 9,443 E 0.93 -35 0.00 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 40 233 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project CMP ID CMP Route From To # of Capacity Lanes (vphpl) 2040 No Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C 2040 Plus Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C Project A Trips V/C F23 1-580 - EB Santa Rita El Charro 5 10,125 10,125 F 1.00 10,172 F 1.00 47 0.00 F24 1-580 - EB El Charro SR 84/Airway Blvd. 5 10,125 10,807 F 1.07 10,923 F 1.08 116 0.01 F37 1-580 - WB SR 84/Airway Blvd Fallon Rd/El Charro 5 10,125 6,837 C 0.68 6,763 C 0.67 -74 -0.01 F38 1-580-WB Fallon Rd/ElCharro Tassajara 5 10,125 6,806 C 0.67 7,290 C 0.72 484 0.05 F39 1-580 - WB Tassajara Rd 1-680 5 10,125 8,099 D 0.80 8,273 D 0.82 174 0.02 T145 Dublin Blvd.-EB Village Parkway Dougherty Rd 3 3,300 1,421 A 0.43 1,391 A 0.42 -30 -0.01 T146 Dublin Blvd.-EB Dougherty Rd Hacienda Dr 3 3,300 2,932 D 0.89 2,894 D 0.88 -38 -0.01 T147 Dublin Blvd.-EB Hacienda Dr Tassajara Dr 3 3,300 3,207 E 0.97 3,264 E 0.99 57 0.02 T334 Dublin Blvd.-EB Tassajara Road Fallon Road 3 3,150 2,759 D 0.88 2,652 D 0.84 -107 -0.03 T231 Dublin Blvd.-WB Fallon Road Tassajara Road 3 3,150 426 A 0.14 523 A 0.17 97 0.03 T148 Dublin Blvd.-WB Tassajara Dr Hacienda Dr 3 3,300 424 A 0.13 485 A 0.15 61 0.02 T149 Dublin Blvd.-WB Hacienda Dr Dougherty Rd 3 3,300 471 A 0.14 557 A 0.17 86 0.03 T150 Dublin Blvd.-WB Dougherty Rd Village Parkway 3 3,300 1,126 A 0.34 1,248 A 0.38 122 0.04 T239 Fallon Rd. -NB 1-580 Tassajara Road 3 3,150 1,027 A 0.33 1,209 A 0.38 182 0.06 T342 Fallon Rd.-SB Tassajara Road 1-580 3 3,150 1,045 A 0.33 1,072 A 0.34 27 0.01 T156 Dougherty Road -NB WB 1-580 OFF ramp Amador Valley Blvd on SB 3 3,300 3,244 E 0.98 3,254 E 0.99 10 0.00 T157 Dougherty Road -NB Amador Valley Blvd on SB Fallcreek Rd on SB/County Line 3 3,150 2,907 E 0.92 2,911 E 0.92 4 0.00 T158 Dougherty Road-SB Fallcreek Rd on SB/County Line Amador Valley Blvd on SB 3 3,150 920 A 0.29 909 A 0.29 -11 0.00 T159 Dougherty Road-SB Amador Valley Blvd on SB WB 1-580 OFF ramp 4 3,300 1,073 A 0.33 1,044 A 0.32 -29 -0.01 T160 Tassajara Road -NB WB 1-580 OFF ramp Central Parkway 2 2,100 1,789 D 0.85 1,830 D 0.87 41 0.02 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 41 234 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project CMP ID CMP Route From To # of Capacity Lanes (vphpl) 2040 No Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C 2040 Plus Project Volume (vph) LOS V/C Project A Trips V/C T161 Tassajara Road -NB Central Parkway T162 Tassajara Road -NB Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr Fallon Rd T163 Tassajara Road -NB Fallon Rd T164 Tassajara Road-SB County Line T165 Tassajara Road-SB Fallon Rd Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr 2 2,100 1,680 C 0.80 1,598 C 0.76 -82 -0.04 2 2,100 894 A 0.43 824 A 0.39 -70 -0.03 County Line 2 2,100 1,064 A 0.51 Fallon Rd 2 2,100 823 A 0.39 768 A 0.37 -55 -0.03 Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr 2 2,100 346 A 0.16 354 A 1,068 A 0.51 0.17 4 8 0.00 0.00 T166 Tassajara Road-SB Somerset Ln/N Dublin Ranch Dr Central Parkway 2 2,100 553 A 0.26 556 A 0.26 3 0.00 T167 Tassajara Road-SB Central Parkway WB I-580OFF ramp 3 3,150 1,036 A 0.33 1,145 A 0.36 109 0.03 T291 Village Parkway - NB Dublin Boulevard County Line 2 2,100 1,192 A 0.57 1,265 A 0.60 73 0.03 T394 Village Parkway - SB Dublin Boulevard County Line 2 2,100 733 A 0.35 723 A 0.34 -10 0.00 Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2024 based on CMP Segment information from the city of Dublin's Travel Demand Model Notes: Bolded text indicates LOS below the CMP standard; V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 42 235 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project PARKING ASSESSMENT The residential units for the Project are in two different parcels. Parcel 7 is accessed off Pandora Way and Pino Grande Road and contains 128 residential units. Parcel 8 is accessed off Croak Road and contains 110 units. This section analyzes whether these two parcels provide adequate parking to meet the requirements of Dublin's municipal code. Dublin's municipal code requires residential units that are townhouses similar to the Project to provide two enclosed garage parking spaces per unit and one on -street parking space located within 150 feet of the unit. The site plans dated February 2024 show slightly fewer parking spaces indicating a request for a parking requirement reduction. Table 15 provides a comparison between the required parking per the Dublin Municipal Code and the provided parking detailed in the site plan. As shown, guest parking has about ten (10) fewer spaces than the parking required per the municipal code. Table 15: Municipal Code Required Vs. Site Plan Provided Residential Parking Parcel? Parcel 8 Municipal Code Site Plan Units Enclosed Guest Enclosed Guest 128 110 256 220 128 110 256 220 120 108 Total 238 476 238 476 228 To assess whether the loss of ten parking spaces is significant, Kittelson reviewed the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation Manual 5th Edition. This manual does not contain parking studies for single family dwelling units such as the Project's townhouses. The most similar land use where parking data is available is multifamily housing (low-rise). Table 16 provides a comparison between the municipal code, the site plan total, and the ITE parking generation estimate based on the 33rd, average, and 85th percentile demand. As shown, both the municipal code and the side plan require/provide significantly more parking than the 85th percentile parking generation numbers. This indicates that both Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 should not be affected by the loss of ten parking spaces compared to the code. Table 16: ITE Parking Generation Vs. Provides and Municipal Code Requirements Parcel7 Parcel8 Units 128 110 Municipal Code Total 384 330 ITE Parking Generation Site Plan Total� Average 85th 376 328 132 114 155 134 195 168 Total 238 714 704 246 289 363 While a reduction from code requirements of ten parking spaces is unlikely to result in insufficient parking supply, the municipal code does require the guest parking to be within 150 feet of the building. In both Parcel 7 and Parcel 8, some guest parking is available within 150 feet of all the residential units. However, the majority of guest parking is provided at the southern end of the site plan, especially for Parcel 8. If Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 43 236 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project guest parking were assigned to individual units, there would be many units in the northern part of the site plan that would have their guest parking more than 150 feet from the unit. Kittelson believes this does not align with the municipal code requirements to provide guest parking within 150 feet since most guests visiting residential units in the northern part of the site plan would have to park more than 150 feet from the residential unit. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 44 237 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project 4. DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS & RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Based on the operations assessment under existing, near -term, and cumulative conditions, two intersections were identified as experiencing a significant effect because of the Project. Details of the effect and proposed improvements are discussed in this section. Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard This intersection serves as one of the primary access points serving the approximately 2.9 million square feet of advanced manufacturing land use proposed by the Project. The majority of these jobs are anticipated to depart the Project in the PM peak hour heading west along Dublin Boulevard or making a left onto Fallon Road to access the 1-580 freeway. There is little land use to the east or north of the Project which results in a heavy demand for the westbound movements at Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard. The westbound left turn at this intersection for example is projected to increase from about 190 vehicles to almost 1,200 vehicles. This amount of left turn volume overloads the triple left turn lanes at this location resulting in poor intersection operations. There are few options at this location to reduce the effect of the Project since it is already operating with triple left turns lanes. Therefore, Kittelson recommends two strategies that can be considered in parallel. The first is an extensive TDM strategy to reduce vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. Kittelson estimated that trip generation in the PM peak hour would need to show more than a 50% reduction to project trips. Should a significant reduction not be feasible, the city should consider requesting upgrades to multimodal infrastructure such as protected bike lanes along Fallon Road in lieu of improvements that benefit vehicles. In addition to a comprehensive TDM plan, the advanced manufacturing component of the Project should be able to access Fallon Road at the Fallon Gateway intersection. There is additional capacity at this intersection to carry more westbound left turn volumes which would reduce the demand for the westbound left turn at Dublin Boulevard on Fallon Road. The effect on LOS cannot be fully quantified without a detailed site plan which will be needed to make the assignment split between exiting onto Dublin Boulevard or onto Fallon Road via Fallon Gateway. Once a site plan is submitted, a careful review should be performed to ensure that the demand for vehicles exiting the advanced manufacturing components of the Project are able to distribute as evenly as possible between the two intersections along Fallon Road at Fallon Gateway and Dublin Boulevard. The layout of this intersection was analyzed to align with the Fallon Road plan line study which calls for four lanes in each direction. This lane alignment and the recommended queue storage for the turn lanes based on cumulative plus project conditions is shown below. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 45 238 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Jr. Fallon Road (N/S) & Dublin Boulevard (E/W) Proposed Lane Assignment NBL: 350' NBR: 625' SBL: 390' SBR: 530' EBL: 295' EBR: 285' WBL: 795'* WBR: 315' *Demand exceeds capacity, implementing TDM measures and providing internal project connections to Fallon Gateway will reduce queue length Fallon Road & Fallon Gateway As a primary intersection providing access to the Project and one of two allowing access to Fallon Road for Project traffic, this intersection has a high volume of vehicles. Based on the operations analysis the minimum lane configuration for this intersection along with the required queue storage for turn lanes is shown below. A single SB left turn lane into the project should be sufficient. Exiting the project on the east leg should have a double left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane. If an internal connection to the advanced manufacturing land uses connects at Fallon Gateway, the WB left turn storage would increase as left turning vehicles shift from the Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection. NBL: 145' NBR: 100' SBL: 215' SBR: 100' EBL: 35' EBR: 160' WBL: 450' WBR: 105' Fallon Road (N/S) & Fallon Gateway (E/W) Proposed Lane Assignment Dublin Boulevard & Commercial Access The commercial access to the advanced manufacturing land uses is assumed to connect development parcels north and south of Dublin Boulevard at approximately the half -way point between Fallon Road and Croak Road. Based on our forecasts and operations analysis, the lane configuration and turn storage Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 46 239 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project for this intersection is shown below. The queue for the northbound left turn lane may be reduced should an internal connection between the advanced manufacturing land uses and Fallon Gateway be provided. Commercial Access (N/S) & Dublin Boulevard (E/W) Proposed Lane Assignment NBL: 545' NBR: N/A* SBL: 95' SBR: 365' EBL: 270' EBR: 415' WBL: 100' WBR: N/A* N/A* — Right turn lane not analyzed for this movement Dublin Boulevard & Croak Road Croak Road south of Dublin Boulevard would provide access to the advanced manufacturing land uses located south of Dublin Boulevard. The assumed lane configuration for this intersection and the estimated minimum queue storage based on cumulative conditions forecasts are shown below. Croak Road (N/S) & Dublin Boulevard (E/W) Proposed Lane Assignment NBL: 365' NBR: N/A* SBL: 120' SBR: 285' EBL: 210' EBR: 120' WBL: 380' WBR: 55' N/A* — Right turn lane not analyzed for this movement Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 47 240 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps This intersection represents the primary freeway access intersection for the Project. This results in a degradation of intersection operations for both the AM and PM peak hours. In the AM peak hours, the Project contributes a large volume to the northbound thorough volume (almost 860 vehicles) which are coming from either the eastbound off -ramp or from south of the interchange along El Charro Road for traffic coming from Pleasanton. The reverse is happening in the PM peak hour with the Project adding almost 660 vehicles to the westbound on -ramp and about 300 traveling through the interchange to El Charro Road. The net effect is LOS F operations with the Project. This intersection has plans to be improved in the future. However, the funding of these improvements is unclear and Kittelson decided on a conservative analysis where the interchange remains under its existing configuration. Based on the Project's effect on the intersection, Kittelson recommends any improvements to the interchange should include at least two northbound through lanes. Adding the additional northbound lane to the existing configuration was found to improve the operations of the westbound ramp terminal intersection to LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours. It is unlikely this can be achieved without replacing the bridge over 1-580 in order to add extra lanes. Therefore, the city should consider requesting a fair share contribution to upgrade the interchange to its ultimate configuration. 95th Percentile Queue Reduction Recommendations ► Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard (#1) o Given the queue is only projected to exceed the available storage by 5 feet in 2040 with the Project, no recommendations are proposed at this intersection. ► Tassajara Road & Central Parkway (#2) o Due to limited ROW and since the queue storage already exceeds 200 feet, lengthening of the turn lane is not recommended. Kittelson recommends the Project be conditioned to update the signal timing at this location to reduce the EBR queue to the extent feasible. ► Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard (#3) o Future forecasts call for a substantial increase for the NBR turn movement at this intersection. A development in the SE corner of this intersection is in the entitlements stage and is anticipated to construct the second NB right turn lane. ► Santa Rita Rd & 1-580 EB Ramps/Pimlico Dr (#5) o Limited ROW prevents the extension of the SBL turn pocket or the addition of a second lane. Therefore, it is recommended the Project be conditioned to implement a signal timing improvement project to reduce the SBL turn lane queue to the extent feasible. ► Fallon Road & Positano Parkway (#7) o The queue for the NBR is projected to only exceed the available storage by 10 feet under cumulative plus project conditions. Since this is a future projection and the increase is less than one vehicle length, no improvements at this intersection are recommended. ► Fallon Road & Central Parkway (#8) o There is limited ROW to extend the WBL turn lanes at this intersection and only the near - term condition was found to exceed the available storage. Therefore, it is recommended Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 48 241 April 3, 2024 Local Transportation Analysis Dublin Fallon 580 Project the Project be conditioned to implement a signal timing improvement project at this intersection to reduce the WBL turn lane queue to the extent feasible. ► Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard (#9) o As noted in the operations recommendations above, there is little that can be done at this intersection other than reduce the Project's trip generation since it is assumed to already operated with three left turn lanes. Therefore, the TDM measures such as long-term bicycle lockers, a shuttle service to the nearest BART station, carpool pairing, and vanpool services should be considered. Once a more detailed site plan is established, an effective TDM plan can be developed. ► Fallon Road & 1-580 WB Ramps (#11) o The Fallon Road and 1-580 interchange is proposed to be improved in the future. The Project should make a fair share contribution to replacing the interchange to reduce the effect of the SBR turn lane queues under cumulative conditions. ► Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway (#16) o Due to limited ROW, the queue effect occurring under cumulative conditions, and since the intersection is being improved as part of the Dublin Boulevard extension, it is recommended the Dublin Boulevard extension Project reduce queues to the extent feasible as part of the final signal timing plans for the intersection. No recommendations are proposed for the Project's conditions of approval. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 49 242 Appendix A: Raw Counts Attachment 10 11 ss DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Dublin Fallon 580 Project QA Addendum April 8,2024 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2023-00033 244 Dublin Fallon 580 Project CEQA Addendum April 8, 2024 Project Overview This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. The subject of this Initial Study is the Dublin Fallon 580 Development project, which includes the potential development of General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO), Open Space (OS), Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR), and Medium High (MH) Density Residential uses on approximately 192-acres in eastern Dublin within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and Fallon Village project site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment to eliminate the Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) land use designation on the project site and amend the land use designation on 42.6 +/- acres from OS to P/PR, a Stage 1 Development Plan amendment, a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential parcels, and a Development Agreement. The project applicant has also submitted a Large Lot Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670-square feet of GC/CO uses. Additionally, the project applicant has submitted two Small Lot Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (VTTMs) for development of the MH Density Residential uses. Prior CEQA Analysis Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs" or "previous CEQA findings," and are described below. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993) The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR and an addendum (Eastern Dublin EIR) were certified by the City Council on August 22, 1994. This EIR analyzed General Plan Amendments affecting a 6,920-acre area and the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), which encompassed a 3,328-acre area and provides a comprehensive planning framework for future development in Eastern Dublin. The area considered in this EIR included 245 the project site within the General Plan Amendment area. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the following impacts: ■ Land Use ■ Population, Employment, and Housing ■ Traffic and Circulation ■ Community Services and Facilities ■ Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage ■ Soils, Geology, and Seismicity ■ Biological Resources ■ Visual Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Noise ■ Air Quality ■ Fiscal Considerations The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts: ■ Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land ■ Cumulative traffic ■ Extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric, and telephone service) ■ Consumption of non-renewable natural resources ■ Increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system ■ Inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population ■ Earthquake ground shaking ■ Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat ■ Regional air quality ■ Noise ■ Alteration of visual character The City adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, which includes mitigation measures and a monitoring plan that continues to apply to development in eastern Dublin. The City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93) in connection with their certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. 246 East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002) In 2002, the City approved an annexation, pre -zoning, and related PD-Planned Development District Stage I Development Plan for the East Dublin Properties area (same area later named "Fallon Village"). The East Dublin Properties project site consists of 1,132 acres within the EDSP area and includes in its entirety the 192-acre GH PacVest Property. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared to determine if the East Dublin Properties project required additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The IS found that many of the anticipated impacts of the East Dublin Properties project were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR given: 1) the comprehensive planning for the development area; 2) the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under the EDSP land use designations and policies; 3) the long-term 20-30 year focus of the EDSP and the Eastern Dublin EIR; 4) the East Dublin Properties project was specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and 5) the East Dublin Properties project consisted of the same land uses analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although the IS concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the East Dublin Properties project, it also identified the potential for new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those previously analyzed. As a result, the Eastern Dublin EIR was updated and supplemented by the Programmatic East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002 Supplemental EIR), which updated the analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. In certifying the 2002 Supplemental EIR, the City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 40-02) for the following impacts: ■ Exceedance of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards ■ Cumulative loss/degradation of sensitive habitats ■ Cumulative traffic operations at several intersections, including Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard ■ Freeway operations on Interstate 580 (1-580) and 1-680 These mitigation measures continue to apply to development in eastern Dublin, including the project site. Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005) In 2005, the City of Dublin considered additional approvals for the 1,132-acre Fallon Village area. These requested approvals had three components: 1. Amendments to the General Plan and EDSP to include the entire 1,132-acre Fallon Village area and to reflect changes to the land use designations on the site; 247 2. Revisions to the 2002 approval of the Planned Development Rezone with a Stage I Development Plan to increase the number of dwellings units by 582 to a total of 3,108 units and increase non-residential uses from 1,081,725 square feet to 2,503,175 square feet of commercial and office uses; and 3. A Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Lot Line Adjustment for the development of the northernly 488 acres of the Fallon Village area to allow 1,078 dwelling units, a school, parks, and associated use. The City approved all three components of the Fallon Village project. On December 6, 2005, the City certified the Final Supplemental Fallon Village Project Environmental Impact Report (2005 Supplemental EIR) that analyzed the new uses and revisions to the previous approvals for the Fallon Village project. The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures. The City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program for this approval that continues to apply to development in the Fallon Village area, including the project site. In addition, as part of Resolution No. 222-05, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following significant and unavoidable impacts: traffic impact to Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, cumulative impacts to local roadways, consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan, demolition of the Fallon Ranch House and an increase in regional emissions beyond Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds. The City Intended this 2005 Supplemental EIR to be used by state or regional agencies in their review of permits required for development in the Fallon Village area (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act) (see, Draft 2005 Supplemental EIR, p. 27). Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document The proposed project is generally based on the land use designations established by the City of Dublin's General Plan and EDSP. This Initial Study relies on the EDSP EIRs which collectively evaluated the development of more than 3,300 acres in the eastern part of the City. The City prepared a CEQA analysis using the City's Initial Study Checklist, April 8, 2024, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City determined, based on substantial evidence, that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the project and an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review per the following: 248 No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City 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 involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The proposed project would maintain all existing land uses and conform to all development regulations except for an increase in floor area ratio (FAR) to 0.60 for the uses in the GC/C0 parcels. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the project does not include substantial changes to the project analyzed under the EDSP EIRs, will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional mitigation measures are required. b) Are there substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the circumstances assumed in the EDSP EIRs that would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts from the project than those previously identified in the EDSP EIRs. As described for each CEQA topic in the Initial Study, the existing environmental conditions or circumstances in and around the project site have not changed such that implementation of the proposed project would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects identified in the EDSP EIRs. Although the EDSP area continues to develop around the project site, the site remains undeveloped grazing land. This is documented in the Initial Study. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe than previously analyzed; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Similarly, the Initial Study documents found that 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 EDSP EIRs adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on portions of the EDSP area. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? 249 No subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant impacts of the project beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other standards for supplemental review under CEQA are met, as documented in the Initial Study. Conclusion This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the proposed project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The City further determines that the EDSP EIRs adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study and EDSP EIRs are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. 250 11 ss DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Dublin Fallon 580 Project Environmental Checklist/Initial Study April 8, 2024 PLPA-2023-00000 251 This page intentionally left blank. 252 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table of Contents I Page i Table of Contents Introduction 1 Background & Project Description 2 Environmental Setting 12 Environmental Checklist 14 Determination 17 Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses 18 Appendices A B D E F G H I J CalEEMod Output Sheets Model Snap Shots Biological Resources Report Special -Status Plant Survey Report Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 90-Day Report Arborist Report CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan Geotechnical Investigation Noise Monitoring Sheets Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Memorandum 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 253 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table of Contents I Page ii List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location 184 Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses 185 Figure 3: Proposed Parcel Layout 186 Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Land Use 187 Figure 5: Residential Site Plan 188 Figure 6: Conceptual Circulation Plan 189 Figure 7: Preliminary Utility Plan 190 Figure 8: Noise Monitoring Locations 191 Note: All figures are included at the end of the document. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 254 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Table of Contents I Page iii List of Tables Table A: Proposed Development 6 Table B: Proposed Uses Compared to Existing Approved Uses 7 Table C: Proposed Residential Uses Compared to Existing Approved Uses 8 Table D: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day 39 Table E: Project Operational Emissions 42 Table F: Unmitigated Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off -Site Receptors 45 Table G: Mitigated Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off -Site Receptors 46 Table H: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) 130 Table I: Equipment Noise by Construction Phase 131 Table J: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 134 Table K: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment 135 Table L: Existing Parks in the Vicinity of the Project Site 143 Table M: Existing Transit Facilities 156 Table N: Estimated Trip Generation for 580 Fallon based on 2022 Proposed Project 163 Table 0: Estimated Trip Generation for 580 Fallon Based on Fallon Village SEIR 163 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 255 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 1 Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is generally based on the land use designations established by the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, this Initial Study relies on the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR),1 which evaluated the development of over 3,300 acres in the eastern part of the City. The Eastern Dublin EIR was certified by the City in 1993. Two addenda to the Eastern Dublin EIR were subsequently adopted by the City. In 2002, a Supplemental EIR (2002 SEIR)2 to the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation project (same area later named "Fallon Village"). The 2002 SEIR was certified by the City in 2002. The 2002 SEIR analyzed annexation of approximately 1,120 acres in eastern Dublin to the City and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, as well as a Prezoning and related PD-Planned Development District Stage 1 Development Plan. The land uses and intensities evaluated in the 2002 SEIR were consistent with both the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and included development of up to 2,526 residential units, 581,090 square feet of commercial use, 840,360 square feet of industrial space, a junior high school, elementary school, parks and open space uses. In 2005, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Fallon Village Project (Fallon Village SEIR)3 to amend the previous entitlements to include approximately 1,134 acres within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, revise the Stage 1 Development Plan (PD-1) to modify the existing land uses and roadway alignments established in 2002, and approve a Stage 2 Development Plan for 1 Dublin, City of. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December. 2 Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. 3 Dublin, City of. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 256 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 2 the northern portion of the Fallon Village project area. The Fallon Village Project allowed for development of up to 3,108 residential units, up to 2,503,175 square feet of commercial, office, light industrial and mixed -use development, two elementary school sites, parks, utility extensions and open spaces within the 1,134-acre site. The City certified the Fallon Village SEIR in December 2005. The subject of this Initial Study is the Dublin Fallon 580 project, which includes development of General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO), Open Space (OS), Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR), and Medium High (MH) Density Residential uses on approximately 192-acres in eastern Dublin within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and Fallon Village project site. Background & Project Description Project TitIF Dublin Fallon 580 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Contact Person and Phone Number Crystal De Castro Senior Planner Phone: 925-833-6610 crystal.decastro@dublin.ca.gov Project Location The approximately 192-acre project site is located in the eastern portion of Dublin (Assessor's Parcel Numbers [APN]: 905-0001-006-03; 985-0027-002; 985-0027-005; 985-0027-004). The project site is located east of Fallon Road and north of Interstate 580 (1-580). Croak Road divides the project site from north to south and the future Dublin Boulevard Extension Project bisects the project site from west to east. Figures 1 and 2 provide the regional location and aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses, respectively. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 257 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 3 Project Applicant's/Sponsor's Name and Address GH PACVEST, LLC 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 5115 Houston, TX 77056 General Plan Designation Medium High Density Residential (13.7 acres), General Commercial/Campus Office ( 126.3 acres), Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR) - (7.2 acres), Open Space (44.9 acres), and Public/Semi- Public (2.5 acres) Zoning Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32-05 and Ordinance No. 13-08 Project Description Project Background and Prior Environmental Review The project is included in three previous CEQA documents, as noted below. Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs" or "previous CEQA findings." Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 1991103064). A Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93. This document and its related addenda collectively are referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the following impacts: ■ Land Use ■ Population, Employment and Housing ■ Traffic and Circulation ■ Community Services and Facilities ■ Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage ■ Soils, Geology and Seismicity ■ Biological Resources ■ Visual Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Noise ■ Air Quality 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 258 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 4 ■ Fiscal Considerations The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93) for the following significant and unavoidable impacts: ■ Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land ■ Cumulative traffic ■ Extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service) ■ Consumption of non-renewable natural resources ■ Increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system ■ Inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population ■ Earthquake ground shaking ■ Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat ■ Regional air quality ■ Noise ■ Alteration of visual character The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and the court upheld the adequacy of the EIR. The City adopted two addenda documents to the Eastern Dublin EIR as noted above. East Dublin Properties Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). In 2001, the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) requested annexation, Prezoning, and related approvals for a 1,120-acre area within eastern Dublin. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR (2002 SEIR) to the Eastern Dublin EIR to evaluate potential development within this area. The 2002 SEIR was certified by the City on April 2, 2002, by City Council Resolution No. 40-02. The 2002 SEIR analyzed annexation of the property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development (PD) Prezoning, and Stage 1 Development Plan. Following certification of the 2002 SEIR, the City approved a PD Prezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans for the site. The 2002 SEIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with development of up to 2,526 residential units, 581,090 square feet of commercial use, 840,360 square feet of industrial space, a junior high school, elementary school, parks and open space uses (the EDPO Project). Based on an Initial Study prepared in 2001, the 2002 SEIR provided updated analyses for agricultural resources, biological resources, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 40-02) for the following impacts: ■ Exceedance of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 259 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 5 ■ Cumulative loss/degradation of sensitive habitats ■ Cumulative traffic operations at several intersections, including Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard ■ Freeway operations on Interstate 580 (1-580) and 1-680 Fallon Village Project Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010). A Supplemental EIR was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with amendments to the previous entitlements to include the entire 1,132-acre site within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The EIR also evaluated the impacts associated with modifying the land uses and roadway alignments established in the 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan (PD-1) to allow for future development of up to 3,108 residential units, up to 2,503,175 square feet of commercial, office, light industrial, and mixed -use development, two elementary school sites, parks and open spaces. The Fallon Village SEIR evaluated the following impacts: ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Traffic and Transportation ■ Community Services and Facilities ■ Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage ■ Soils, Geology, and Seismicity ■ Biological Resources ■ Visual Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Noise ■ Air Quality ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ■ Parks and Recreation The Fallon Village SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the traffic impacts at the Dublin/Dougherty intersection, cumulative impacts to freeway operations on Interstate 580 (1-580) and 1-680, traffic levels exceeding County monitoring standards, demolition of the historic Fallon Ranch House and increase in regional air quality emissions. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 40-02) for these impacts. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 260 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 6 Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential parcels, Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and Development Agreement. The General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment would eliminate approximately 2.5-acres of designated Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) land use on the project site and amend the land use designation on approximately 42.6-acres from Open Space (OS) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR). Implementation of the proposed project would result in the subdivision of the approximately 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed residential, commercial/office, park, and open space uses. A total of 238 residential units are proposed within approximately 13.7-acres designated as Medium High (MH) Density Residential, up to 3,299,670-square feet of commercial/office uses is proposed on approximately 126.3-acres designated as General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO), approximately 49.8-acres of parkland is designated as P/PR, and approximately 2.3-acres of OS is designated in the General Pland and EDSP, as shown below in Table A and Figure 3. Additionally, the project applicant has submitted two Small Lot Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (VTTMs) for development of the MH Density Residential with a Stage 2 Development Plan. Table A: Proposed Development Parcel Number Use Number of Units/Building Size Gross Acreages Density (dwelling units/acre)/FAR 1 General Commercial/Campus Office 1,944,780 square feet 74.41 0.60 2 General Commercial/Campus Office 455,550 square feet 17.43 0.60 3 General Commercial/Campus Office 526,902 square feet 20.16 0.60 4 Parks/ Public Recreation (Natural Community Park) NA 33.40 NA 5 Parks/ Public Recreation (Community Park) NA 7.22 NA 6 Parks/ Public Recreation (Natural Community Park) NA 9.19 NA 7 Medium High Density Residential 128 residential units 6.50 19.7 8 Medium High Density Residential 110 residential units 7.20 15.3 9 General Commercial/Campus Office 321,473 square feet 12.30 0.60 10 Open Space NA 2.28 NA 11 General Commercial/Campus Office 50,965 square feet 1.95 NA TOTAL 238 residential units 3,299,670 square feet 192.04 Source: MacKay & Somps (2024) NA — Not Applicable In 2005, the City approved the Fallon Village PD-1 and certified the SEIR, establishing the land uses and intensities for the Fallon Village properties. The proposed project would retain the proposed land use designations for the Dublin Fallon property as identified in the General Plan, EDSP and PD-1 with some minor revisions to the proposed acreages and land use designations, as shown in Table B below. Figure 4 illustrates the existing and proposed land use plan. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 261 City of Dublin Table B: Proposed Uses Compared to Existing Approved Uses Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 7 Proposed Uses Existing Approved Stage 1 PD and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Gross Number Density Gross Maximum Density Density Acreage3 of Units/ (dwelling Acreage3 Number of Range/ FAR Range/ FAR (acre) Building units/acre)/ (acre) Units/ (per EDSP) (per Stage 1 Size FAR Building Size PD) Medium High (MH) Density Residential 13.70 238 units 17.4 du/acre 13.5 238 units 14.1-25.0 du/acre2 14.1-25.0 du/acre General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO) 126.25 3,299,670 square feet 0.2 - 0.6 FAR 126.4 1,522,161 square feet 0.2 - 0.8FAR2 0.2 - 0.8 FAR Parks/Public 7.22 - - 7.2 - - - Recreation (P/PR) - Community Park Parks/Public 42.59 - - 0 - - - Recreation (P/PR) — Natural Community Park Open Space (OS) 2.28 - - 44.9 - - - Public Semi -Public' 0 - - 2.5 - - - (P/SP) Total 192.04 190.41 Source: MacKay & Somps (2024) 1 Public/Semi-Public is a floating land use. Final location to be determined at time of PD-2 approval and acreage will be deducted from affected land use. The Public/Semi-Public site is designated in the 2023-2031Housing Element to yield 74 low-income units 'Development projections in the EDSP do not represent maximum development potential, but assume lower, more realistic, development potential based on historical evidence of similar development in other communities. The EDSP assumed a density of 20 du/acre for Medium High Density Residential and an FAR of .28 for General Commercial/Campus Office. 'Acreages from prior General Plan, Specific Plan, and PD1 approvals were based on assumed boundary limits. Proposed Acreages reflected in this application have been updated to match resolved boundary survey data dated January 2017. [Note the discrepancy in total acreages] Residential The proposed project would consist of the development of 238 residential townhome units consistent with the General Plan MH Density Residential land use designation and a Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan for the two residential parcels (Parcel 7 and Parcel 8). Table C shows the existing and proposed residential land uses proposed with the Small Lot VTTMs. Figure 5 shows the proposed site plan for the residential portion of the proposed project. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 262 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 8 Table C: Proposed Residential Uses Compared to Existing Approved Uses Proposed Stage 2 PD Existing Approved Stage 1 PD and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Gross Number Density Gross Maximum Density Density Acreage' of Units (dwelling Acreage' Number of Range/Max Range/Max units/acre)/ Units/ FAR (per FAR (per FAR Building Size EDSP) Stage 1 PD) Parcel 7 —Tract 8666 6.5 128 19.7 6.5 130 14.1-25.0 14.1-25.0 Medium High (MH) du/acre du/acre Density Residential Parcel 8 —Tract 8667 7.2 110 15.3 7.0 108 14.1-25.0 14.1-25.0 Medium High (MH) du/acre du/acre Density Residential Total 13.7 238 13.5 238 Source: MacKay & Somps (2024) 1 Acreages from prior General Plan, Specific Plan, and PD1 approvals were based on assumed boundary limits. Proposed Acreages reflected in this application have been updated to match resolved boundary survey data dated January 2017. [Note the discrepancy in total acreages] Proposed development would consist of three-story (maximum 40 feet in height) townhome units with front doors facing the primary private streets and facing outward toward surrounding uses, as well as front doors located along common landscape paseos. Each unit would have a private two -car garage, accessible from a private alley. Balconies and decks would provide private outdoor space for each unit. Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section 8.68.030 requires the project to construct 12.5 percent of the 238 units as affordable units. Therefore, 30 affordable units are required for this project under the DMC. Pursuant to Section 8.68.040 A, the project proposes to pay a fee in lieu of constructing 40 percent of the required affordable units. Therefore, 18 affordable units would be constructed on the project site. The allocation of income levels for the 18 affordable units would be seven units for low-income households and 11 units for moderate -income households as required by the DMC. A total of 703 parking spaces (375 parking spaces on Parcel 7 and 328 parking spaces on Parcel 8) would be provided to accommodate the proposed residential development. Of these, 476 parking spaces would be residential in -garage spaces and 228 would be guest parking located primarily along the southern boundary of the two residential parcels with guest parking also dispersed throughout each neighborhood. General Commercial/Campus Office The proposed project would include development of general commercial and campus office uses consistent with the GC/CO designation and PD zoning on the five GC/CO parcels (Parcels 1, 2, 3, 9, and 11), totaling approximately 126.3-acres. Consistent with the PD-GC/CO zoning, these parcels could accommodate a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office use, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Future development of these parcels 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 263 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 9 would be consistent with the City's development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet.4 As shown in Table B, the project would include a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO portion of the project site, which is consistent with the FAR allowed in the Fallon Village PD-1 and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and an increase from the 0.28 FAR assumed under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Based on the 0.6 FAR, the proposed project would result in the development of up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office development compared to the 1,522,161 square feet of development anticipated in the EDSP and evaluated in the EDSP EIRs. Although the FAR limit has been increased, the project applicant has proposed a mix of limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses for the GC/CO parcels that is compatible with the surrounding area and falls within the anticipated development intensity (e.g., traffic, air emissions) anticipated in the EDSP EIRs. Access, Circulation, and Parking Primary access to Parcel 7 would be via a planned private street connection into the existing Jordan Ranch development at the west and east ends of Pandora Way, respectively. The primary vehicular connection to Pandora Way provides access to nearby arterial roadways via Central Parkway west to Fallon Road and via the planned extension of Central Parkway east to Croak Road (constructed as part of the Francis Ranch project) and on to the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. Pedestrian walkways and bike paths would connect to the adjacent Jordan Ranch project and a landscaped green corridor with an 8-foot multi -use walkway is proposed along the northwest edge of Parcel 7, connecting directly to a future 7.2-acre Community Park immediately to the west. Note: The primary connection to the Community Park will be from Central Parkway, just west of Cottonwood Creek School. Access from Parcel 7 would be secondary access via private streets and public access easements. In addition, due to site topography, Parcel 7 would require the installation of perimeter retaining walls to conform with the existing and proposed elevations surrounding the site. Primary vehicular access to Parcel 8 would be provided via an east/west private street off of Croak Road, running along the southern edge of Parcel 8. The proposed grades would allow for potential future extension east into the adjacent Righetti property. Pedestrian walkways would connect to a proposed urban pocket park at the north end of Parcel 8 at a proposed EVA fire access with pedestrian connection also provided to the Francis Ranch community to the north, and to Central Parkway through the urban pocket park. Due to site topography, Parcel 8 would require the installation of perimeter retaining walls to conform with the existing and proposed elevations surrounding the site. Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. A signalized intersection would provide access to Parcels 1 and 2. Access to Parcels 9 and 3 would be via a right-in/right-out only access point. In addition, a private roadway would 4 The maximum height for General Commercial and Campus Office uses is 45 feet. If the principal structure is within 50 feet of a residential structure, the maximum height limit is 35 feet. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 264 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 10 be provided off Fallon Road, adding a fourth leg to the existing Fallon Gateway/Fallon Road intersection. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. The conceptual circulation plan is shown in Figure 6. Open Space and Landscaping The project would include dedication of land for a future 7.2-acre Community Park and 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park. As outlined in the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Community Park amenities include picnic areas with tables, play equipment, restrooms, and three soccer fields. The conversion of 42.6 acres of OS to P/RP would help address the City's parkland deficit by providing land for a future Natural Community Park designed for low impact use and maintenance, with hiking and walking trails. The Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan includes landscape design guidelines and a planting palette to create a unified community aesthetic. The landscape theme would feature vibrant, blossoming plants and evergreens that complement the proposed architecture and encourage pedestrian access and connectivity within the residential development and to adjacent neighborhoods. The entrance to each residential parcel would have its own character, while still fitting in with the surrounding community. Internal streets and sidewalks would be planted with various street trees, placed to maximize solar exposure. Low -growing groundcover would enhance pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks. An urban pocket park is proposed at the north end of Parcel 8 at the EVA and would include decorative hardscape area with surrounding landscape and amenities. This will be designed in conjunction with the location of the connection to Central Parkway and Francis Ranch to the north. The preliminary landscape plan for the commercial areas will be included in the future Stage 2 Development Plan for those areas. Utilities and Infrastructure The project site is currently served by overhead electric and communication lines and by sanitary sewer septic systems and on -site well water. Existing and proposed utility connections are discussed below and shown in Figure 7. Water. Water service would be provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The proposed project would include the installation of new water lines on the site that would connect to the proposed potable water and recycled water (if available) mains within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road and the existing water main at Pandora Way. Wastewater. Wastewater service would be provided by DSRSD. New sanitary sewer lines would be installed within the project site and would tie into proposed sanitary sewer mains within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension, the sanitary sewer main along Croak Road (proposed with the Francis Ranch project) and the existing sanitary sewer main at Pandora Way. Stormwater. The project site is currently undeveloped and, therefore, contains minimal impervious surfaces. The proposed project would include bioretention facilities and storm 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 265 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 11 drains on each MH and GC/CO parcel for stormwater quality control. Proposed bioretention and storm drain facilities would discharge to existing/proposed storm drainpipes. Hydromodification vaults would be included on -site to provide flow duration controls for the project. Proposed storm drainage facilities would conform to the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical guidelines and requirements. Electricity and Gas. Electricity and gas service would be provided to the project site by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). The proposed project would include connections to proposed electricity and natural gas lines within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road and existing lines within Pandora Way. Grading and Construction Cut and fill from project grading would be balanced on -site. It is anticipated that the maximum depth of excavation for building pads would be approximately 45 feet and the maximum depth of utility trenching would be approximately 15 feet. If approved, construction of the proposed project would begin with the residential development on Parcel 7, followed by the residential development on Parcel 8 and concluding with the development of the GC/CO parcels, Natural Community Park, and the Community Park. The proposed project would include phased construction, which would consist of site preparation and grading, building construction and asphalt paving/landscaping. Overall, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately ten years, with development of the GC/CO pending the completion of the Dublin Boulevard Extension. Project Entitlements The City is the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed project and will consider the environmental impacts of the proposed project as part of the project approval. Permits and approvals required for the proposed project include a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment to eliminate the P/SP land use designation and amend the land use designation on 42.6 acres from OS to P/PR, a Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan amendment, a Stage 2 Development Plan for the MH Density Residential uses only, a Large Lot VTTM (Tract 8663), two Small Lot VTTMs for development of the MH Density Residential uses (Tracts 8666 and 8667), and a Development Agreement. In addition, subsequent Site Development Review Permits would be required for the project. Ministerial actions would be required for implementation of the project including issuance/approval of grading permits, encroachment permits, improvements plans, and building permits. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 266 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 12 Environmental Setting Project Site and Existing Facilities The approximately 192-acre project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin. The site is bounded by Jordan Ranch and Francis Ranch' to the north, the vacant Righetti property 6 to the east, Fallon Road and the existing Fallon Gateway shopping center to the west and Croak Road and Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south. The project site is vacant and is currently used for intermittent cattle grazing activities. The future Dublin Boulevard Extension' bisects the project site from west to east. Croak Road bisects the site from north to south. The topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern portion of the site adjacent to 1-580 and Fallon Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern portion. Hillslopes range from 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level. The project site supports five habitat types consisting of non-native annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh and riparian woodlands. Rolling hills, located in the northern portion of the project site, contain ephemeral drainages which capture and drain the hills into a more gradually sloped valley floor. An extension of an unnamed intermittent drainage flows through the northwestern corner of the site adjacent to Croak Road. A roadside ditch along Croak Road (located just outside the western boundary of the site) is characterized by cattails (Typha latifolia), willow trees (Salix spp.), and hydrophytic foliage. During wet seasons this ditch overflows onto the project site creating a large complex of perennial marsh and seasonal wetland depression, which provide suitable habitat to many wildlife species. The southern portion of the project site contains several small wetlands intermingled within the grassland. An abandoned quarry pond in the northeast portion of the project site supports a seasonal pond feature and seasonal wetlands bordered by a small band of riparian woodland. Characteristic grassland vegetation across the project site includes wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum spp. leporinum), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), filaree (Erodium spp.), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), cattail (Typha spp.), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), flatsedge (Cyperuss eragrostis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and common spike rush (Eleocharis palustris). Common shrubs and trees include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Peruvian 5 The Francis Ranch project consists of development of the 165.5-acre site with a 573-unit residential project within six neighborhoods, two neighborhood parks 11.5 acres, and a two -acre Semi -Public Site 6 Current plans for the Righetti property would include development of up to 96 residential units, up to 372,350 square feet of industrial use and up to 321,125 square feet of campus office/light industrial uses. ' The Dublin Boulevard Extension, which is being planned and implemented by the City of Dublin, would include a new roadway extension between the eastern terminus of Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin and the western terminus of North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore, traversing land in Dublin and Alameda County before terminating at the western border of Livermore. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 267 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 13 peppertree (Schinus molle), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), and willow trees. Several ornamental trees are located within the far east -central portion of the project site, which was once developed with a homestead and related farming / ranch out -buildings. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 268 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 14 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all of the potentially significant effects for the environmental factors listed below have been analyzed adequately in earlier EIRs or other environmental review documents pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to earlier EIRs or other environmental review documents, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, there are no significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed project. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Instructions 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see Source List, attached). A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 269 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 15 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated": applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. "Earlier Analysis" may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: o The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and o The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 270 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 16 significant 10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 271 City of Dublin Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 17 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. x CITY OF DUBLIN Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner Date 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 272 City of Dublin Explanation of Environmental Checklist Responses Aesthetics Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 18 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues N ew Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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 public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Environmental Setting The project site is located within the southernmost portion of the Eastern Dublin area. As described in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the southern portion of the Eastern Dublin area is flat, open, and covered with grasslands and agricultural field crops. The northern portions include steeper foothills with canyons settled with farms and ranchettes. Much of the Eastern Dublin area has since been developed consistent with the land uses identified in the EDSP and subsequent planning approvals. The project site is vacant and is currently used for intermittent cattle grazing activities. The future Dublin Boulevard Extension bisects the project site from west to east. The future Croak Road extension bisects the site from north to south. The topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern boundary adjacent to Croak Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern boundary. Hillslopes range 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level. No designated State scenic highways are located near the project site. However, 1-580 located just south of the project site, is an eligible State scenic highway and a designated Alameda County scenic route. The project site is visible from both eastbound and westbound 1-580. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 273 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 19 Vehicle head and taillights on area roadways, and lighting associated with 1-580, are the existing sources of light and glare in the project area. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to standardized tract development, obscuring distinctive natural features, alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses, alteration of Dublin's visual identity as a freestanding city, scenic vistas, and scenic routes. All of these impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that impacts associated with the alteration of the rural/open space visual character of the project area and alteration of the visual character of the flatlands would be significant and unavoidable. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.8/1.0 Establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors and public spaces. MM 3.8/2.0 Implement the land use plan for the Project site which emphasizes retention of the predominant natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and sense of openness that characterize eastern Dublin. MM 3.8/3.0 Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. MM 3.8/4.0 Visual impacts of extensive grading shall be reduced by sensitive engineering design, by using gradual transition from graded areas to natural slopes and by revegetation. MM 3.8/4.1 Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topography as much as possible. Grading beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only. MM 3.8/4.4 Graded slopes shall be re -contoured to resemble existing landforms in the immediate area. Cut and graded slopes shall be revegetated with native vegetation suitable to hillside environments. MM 3.8/4.5 The height of cut and fill slopes shall be minimized to the greatest degree possible. Grades for cut and fill slopes should be 3:1 or less whenever feasible. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 274 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 20 MM 3.8/5.1 Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop (i.e., silhouetted) when viewed from designated scenic routes. MM 3.8/6.0 Tassajara Creek and other stream corridors are visual features that have special scenic value for the planning area. The visual character of these corridors should be protected from unnecessary alteration or disturbance and adjoining development should be sites to maintain visual access to the stream corridors. MM 3.8/7.0 Preserve views of designated open space areas. MM 3.8/8.1 The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit a detailed visual analysis with development project application. Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawn from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from scenic routes. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impacts. 2002 SEIR The effects of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) Project on visual resources were addressed in the Initial Study prepared as part of the 2002 SEIR. The Initial Study determined that the EDPO Project would have no impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR because the development footprint and intensity of development was the same as previously analyzed. Fallon Village SEIR No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Scenic vistas, views A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista generally include: 1) scenic quality; 2) sensitivity level; and 3) view access. The City of Dublin General Plan identifies the visually sensitive ridgelines located in the open space areas in the Western and Eastern Extended Planning Areas of the City as scenic resources. 1-580 provides scenic views of these ridgeline areas and is an Alameda County -designated scenic route. Implementation of the proposed project would subdivide the 192-acre site into eleven parcels to accommodate the proposed development of up to 238 residential units on two residential parcels (Parcel 7 and Parcel 8). The residential units would consist of three-story (maximum 40 feet in height) townhomes with front doors facing the primary private streets and facing outward toward surrounding uses, as well as front doors located along common landscape 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 275 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 21 paseos. The project applicant has submitted two Small Lot Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (VTTMs) for development of the MH Density Residential uses to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would also include up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses. The general commercial/campus office uses would be consistent with the GC/CO land use designation and PD zoning on the five GC/CO parcels (Parcels 1, 2, 3, 9 and 11), totaling approximately 126.3-acres. Consistent with the PD-GC/CO zoning, these parcels could accommodate a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office uses, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Future development of these parcels would be consistent with the City's development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet.' Additionally, the project would include 7.2-acres for a Community Park, 2.3-acres of Open Space, and 42.6-acres for a Natural Community Park. The proposed development would be visible from public vantage points, including Collier Canyon Road, the future Dublin Boulevard Extension, and 1-580, which is an eligible State scenic highway and a designated Alameda County scenic route. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains Figure 3.8-H, Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, depicting portions of the Eastern Dublin area that contains ridges and ridgelands which are considered to be visually sensitive. As identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the lower and hillside areas located closer to 1-580 with topographic elevations generally ranging between approximately 460 and 480 feet above sea level are designated as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-restricted development." As described above, the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that development associated with implementation of the EDSP would alter the character of existing scenic vistas and obscure important sightlines. These impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and listed above. Consistent with the findings in the Fallon Village SEIR, due to the elevation and existing topography of the project site, proposed development would continue to limit views of the primary ridgeline and affect scenic vistas from 1-580 and other public vantage points. Although the density of the proposed general commercial/campus office uses would be greater than previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs, the general type and massing of buildings would not be significantly different than analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. However, consistent with the findings of the Fallon Village SEIR, proposed development would continue to limit views of the primary ridgeline, designated as scenic resource in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 8 The maximum height for General Commercial and Campus Office uses is 45 feet. If the principal structure is within 50 feet of a residential structure, the maximum height limit is 35 feet. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 276 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 22 Consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the proposed project would be required to undergo site -specific design review to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement other Mitigation Measures (MM 3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM 3.8/4.4, MM 3.8/4.5, MM 3.8/5.1) identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which include design features to minimize visual impacts (e.g., sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation). With implementation of the aforementioned Mitigation Measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas and views, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Scenic resources As described above, I-580 located just south of the project site, is an eligible State scenic highway and an Alameda County designated scenic route. The 1-580 scenic corridor is defined as the area which is both within 3,500 feet on each side of the centerline of 1-580 and visible from 1-580. Per City of Dublin General Plan policies, design review would be required for all projects visible from a designated scenic route in order to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers. As described in Section 1.a, the proposed project would alter views from 1-580 and result in a change in visual conditions, as described in the EDSP EIRs. However, development of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, as these resources are not currently present on the project site. Further, the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs and the visual policies in the City of Dublin General Plan would apply to the proposed project, and the proposed project would be required to undergo site -specific design review to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards. With implementation of the aforementioned Mitigation Measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to scenic resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (c) Substantially degrade the visual character of public views of the site or surrounding area Development of the proposed project would alter the existing visual character of the project area and vicinity by introducing residential, community park, and general commercial/campus office uses onto the existing largely undeveloped parcel. A total of 238 residential units are proposed within approximately 13.7 acres designated MH Density Residential in the General Plan and EDSP. Residential development would be three stories high, with a maximum height of up to 40 feet. Approximately 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office use is proposed on approximately 126.3-acres. Future development of these parcels would be consistent with the City's development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet. Additionally, the project would include 7.2-acres for a Community Park, 2.3-acres for Open Space, and 42.6-acres for a Natural Community Park. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 277 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 23 As outlined in the Project Description, the project proposes a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO parcels, which is an increase from the FAR established for these uses in the EDSP EIRs. However, the proposed project would include establishment of residential and commercial design guidelines to regulate the design of the proposed uses within the project site. Design guidelines for the proposed residential development include variation in roof forms and heights, setbacks for the upper floors, variation in materials, and earth -toned colors to minimize the visual scale of proposed structures and to provide visual interest. Landscaping is proposed to promote a cohesive landscape within the residential areas of the project site, including flowering plant material that complements the site architecture, provides seasonal color, and connects adjacent uses and activities. Similar guidelines would need to be established for the proposed commercial areas of the project site as part of the subsequent approvals. Implementation of these design elements would further mitigate the visual impact of the building heights and massing. As described above, the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that visual impacts associated with the alteration of the rural/open space character of the project area and alteration of the visual character of the flatlands would be significant and unavoidable. Other impacts to visual resources, including impacts to distinctive natural features, scenic vistas, and scenic routes, and alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although the density of the proposed general commercial/campus office uses would be greater than previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs, the general type and massing of buildings would not be significantly different. Consistent with the findings of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site, which would be converted from rural development to urban development, with general commercial/campus office uses and residential buildings. Because the general type and massing of the proposed buildings would not be significantly different than those considered in the EDSP EIRs, the difference in density would not substantially increase the severity of this previously identified impact. Therefore, changes to the existing visual environment would be the same as described in the EDSP EIRs. The mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the visual policies in the City of Dublin General Plan would apply to the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would be required to undergo site -specific design review to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the visual character of the site and surrounding area, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare Similar to the development evaluated in the EDSP EIRs, the proposed project would introduce new light sources to the project site, including new building lighting, light standards along proposed roadways, parking areas and pedestrian pathways, and loading facilities. At night, these new sources of light would be visible from a distance; however, the addition of new light 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 278 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 24 sources associated with the proposed project would generally blend in with lighting of adjacent development projects to the north and west and would represent a continuation of the existing development within this area of the City. Consistent with City requirements, exterior lighting would be shielded so that direct glare and reflections are confined within the boundaries of the project site. Site lighting would be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights -of -way such that no light spillover onto adjacent properties or streets would occur. Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and can be a nuisance for pedestrians and other viewers. Proposed exterior building materials for the residential development would primarily include stone, brick or lap siding. These non -reflective building materials would not result in potential glare impacts within the project site or surrounding areas, and notably at the street level. With adherence to City requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with light and glare, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified aesthetic/visual impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 279 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 25 Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 280 City of Dublin Agricultural and Forestry Resources Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 26 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Environmental Setting The project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The surrounding area is characterized by undeveloped open space and residential uses. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program categorizes the project site as Grazing Land and Urban and Built -Up Land. Grazing Land is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Other Land includes land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Urban and Built -Up land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 281 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 27 residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified less than significant impacts related to discontinuation of agricultural uses, loss of farmlands of local importance, indirect impacts resulting from non - renewal of Williamson Act contracts, and conversion of non -urban lands. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that the loss of agricultural uses within the Eastern Dublin Area was less than significant, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified the cumulative loss of agricultural lands and open space as a significant and unavoidable impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact. 2002 SEIR A review of potential prime agricultural soils within the project area was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional prime agricultural lands occur in the project area beyond those identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified; therefore, no new significant impacts related to prime agricultural soils or cancellation of Williamson Act contracts were identified. Fallon Village SEIR No additional impacts or mitigation related to agricultural resources were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (farmland) As described above, the project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other type of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur. (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract The project site is currently classified as Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32-05 on the City's Zoning Map. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes, not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not protected by, or eligible for, a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts. No new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract would occur. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 282 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 28 (c) Conversion of land from Farmland or forest use As described above, the project site is currently classified as Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32-05 on the City's Zoning Map, which allows for a mix of residential, general commercial/campus office, and limited light manufacturing uses on the project site. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is zoned for agricultural use, forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the conversion of farmland or forest land would occur. (d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest No forest or timberland exists on the project site or in the surrounding area and the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the loss or conversion of forest land would occur. (e) Conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use None of the project parcels are currently used as farmland or forest land. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland on or off the project site to non-agricultural uses because there are no agricultural uses on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Likewise, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with the conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agricultural uses would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified agricultural impacts, nor result in new significant impacts to agricultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) California Department of Conservation (DOC). California Farmland Conservancy. California Important Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed September 13, 2023). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 283 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 29 Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 284 City of Dublin Air Quality Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 30 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Environmental Setting The proposed project is located in the City of Dublin and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Dublin, and the rest of the Air Basin, exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons. Within BAAQMD, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility. BAAQMD is under State non -attainment status for ozone and particulate matter standards. BAAQMD is classified as non -attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard and non -attainment for the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 285 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 31 Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that mobile source CO emissions would be less than significant and construction dust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that impacts associated with construction equipment/vehicle emissions, mobile source reactive organic gasses (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and stationary source emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.11/1.0 The City of Dublin shall: ■ Require watering in late morning and at the end of the day; the frequency of watering should increase if wind exceeds 15 mph. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off -site. Use recycled or other non -potable water resources where feasible. ■ Require daily cleanup of mud and dust carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles. ■ Require excavation haul trucks to use tarpaulins or other effective covers. ■ Require that, upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible. ■ Require that unnecessary idling of construction equipment is avoided. ■ Require that, after grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: o All inactive portions of the construction site should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. o Require that all portions of the site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. o Require that, at all times, the following procedures should be followed: ■ On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. ■ Use of petroleum -based palliative shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non -petroleum -based tackifiers may be required by the Public Works Director. ■ The Public Works Department will handle all dust complaints. The Public Works Director may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust problem and additional ways to mitigate impacts on residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 286 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 32 controlled. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM levels shall be provided as directed by the Public Works Director in Dublin. MM 3.11/2.0 Minimize construction interference with regional non -project traffic movement by: ■ Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non -peak travel periods. ■ Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. ■ Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. ■ Providing ride -share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. MM 3.11/3.0 Require emissions control from on -site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low -emissions tune-ups. MM 3.11/4.0 Require preparation of a construction impact reduction plan that incorporates all proposed air quality mitigation strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan implementation and supervision. MM 3.11/5.0 Exercise interagency cooperation with a sub -regional and on a regional basis to integrate air quality planning efforts with transportation, transit, and other infrastructure plans. MM 3.11/6.0 Maintain consistency among specific development plans and regional transportation and growth management plans. MM 3.11/7.0 Implement transportation demand management (TDM) techniques to reduce mobile source emissions. MM 3.11/8.0 Optimize the existing transportation system to reduce congestion and shift travel to non -peak travel periods. MM 3.11/9.0 Coordinate levels of growth with roadway transportation facilities improvements to accommodate travel demand without inducing demand by providing excess system capacity. MM 3.11/10.0 Encourage mixed -use development that provides housing, jobs, goods and services in close proximity. MM 3.11/11.0 Require linkage between growth of housing and job opportunities consistent with a positive sub -regional contribution to jobs/housing ratio balances. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 287 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 33 MM 3.11/12.0 Stationary source emissions associated with Project development should also be minimized where feasible to reduce overall cumulative impacts. Minimum energy conservation standards are established in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Design practice can achieve a slightly greater level of conservation than the minimum standards. A conservation target level for some fraction of Eastern Dublin development of 10 percent above the minimum should be implemented as an appropriate acknowledgement of the desired "environmentally -friendly" community character for this Project. MM 3.11/13.0 Solid waste recycling should be included in all development planning to ensure that recycling criteria specified in AB-939 can be most easily met. 2002 SEIR A review of potential operational air quality impacts was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional operational air quality impacts would occur beyond those identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified; therefore, no new significant impacts related to air quality were identified. Fallon Village SEIR No additional impacts were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. However, the Fallon Village SEIR identified the following supplemental mitigation measures that would be applicable to the proposed project: SM-AQ-1: In addition to the measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall: a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. SM-AQ-2: In addition to the measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3.11/5.0-11.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall require that the following be implemented: a) The Project proponent should coordinate with LAVTA for the eventual extension of transit service to the Project area. Project proponents should construct or reserve necessary right-of-way for transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, etc. b) Bicycle land and/or paths, connected to community -wide network should be provided as part of the Stage 1 Development Plan. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 288 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 34 c) Sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/or community -wide network should be provided as part of the Stage 1 Development Plan. d) Consider shuttle service to regional transit system or multimodal center. e) Consider providing a satellite telecommute center for Project residents if this is feasible in terms of a convenient location. f) Provide interconnected street network, with a regular grid or similar interconnected street pattern. SM-AQ-3: Same as Supplemental Mitigation AQ-2. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Consistency with the applicable clean air plan BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defines control strategies to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest heath risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: (1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; (2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and (3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. As described below, the proposed project: (1) does not support the goals of the Clean Air Plan because the proposed project's operational emissions would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds; (2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan because the proposed project would promote the BAAQMD's initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would comply with the latest California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards; and (3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan since the proposed project would include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan. However, since the proposed project would not support the goals of the Clean Air Plan, the project is not consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Clean Air Plan Goals.The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable operational emissions in violation of the BAAQMD's significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would conflict with the Clean Air Plan goals. The primary goals of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area, reduce GHG emissions and protect climate. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 289 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 35 BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact on the region's attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were established to help protect public health. If a project exceeds these thresholds, it is not aligned with the Clean Air Plan goals. Construction Emissions. As discussed below, with implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified below, and Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0 from the Eastern Dublin EIR, the project would result in less -than -significant construction -period emissions. Operational Emissions. As discussed below, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable operational emissions. Therefore, the project would conflict with the Clean Air Plan goals. Clean Air Plan Control Measures.The control measures of the Clean Air Plan include measures in the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures, Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super-GHG Pollutants Measures. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable Clean Air Plan control measures. Stationary Source Control Measures. The Stationary Source Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by BAAQMD and then enforced by BAAQMD's Permit and Inspection programs. Since the project would not include any stationary sources of emissions, the Stationary Source Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project. Transportation Control Measures. BAAQMD identifies Transportation Control Measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed residential, limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail and office uses within the project area. The proposed project would increase pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through the site and to adjacent developments. Croak Road and Dublin Boulevard are proposed to be extended to provide access to the project site and would have sidewalks on both sides of the road. Additionally, new bicycle facilities are proposed on the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road, which would serve the project site. The proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with any plans or policies for transit usage in the area such as the Dublin Boulevard Extension project, which will have bus pull outs, bus pads, and passenger pads along the roadway. As such, the proposed project's proximity to surrounding uses and the ability for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the project site would support the ability of employees and residents to use alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the project would not conflict 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 290 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 36 with BAAQMD initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and VMT and would encourage the use of alternate means of transportation through increasing pedestrian and bicyclist access. Energy Control Measures.The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy Control Measures, which are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area, as well as decreasing the carbon intensity of the electricity used by switching to less GHG-intensive fuel sources for electricity generation. Since these measures apply exclusively to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Energy Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project. Building Control Measures. BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters but has limited authority to regulate buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standards. Therefore, the Building Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project. Agriculture Control Measures.The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily reduce emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project. Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The Natural and Working Lands Control Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as encouraging local governments to enact ordinances that promote urban -tree plantings. The proposed project would plant -trees and landscaping throughout the project site. As described in the Project Description, the project would include dedication of land for a future 7.2-acre Community Park and 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park. Additionally, the Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan includes landscape design guidelines and a planting palette to create a unified community aesthetic. The landscape theme would feature blossoming plants and evergreens that complement the proposed architecture and encourage pedestrian access and connectivity within the residential development and to adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, the project site supports five habitat types consisting of non-native annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh and riparian woodlands. As discussed in Section 4., Biological Resources, with implementation of mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, which require compensatory mitigation for loss of wetlands, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wetlands, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Natural and Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan. Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Measures focus on reducing or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The project would comply with local requirements for waste management 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 291 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 37 (e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan. Water Control Measures. The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems. Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the project. Super-GHG Control Measures.The Super-GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through BAAQMD and local government agencies. Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the Super-GHG Control Measures are not applicable to the project. Clean Air Plan Implementation.As discussed above, the proposed project would implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation Control Measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control measure from the Clean Air Plan. However, as discussed above and below, the proposed project would conflict with the goals of the Clean Air Plan, due to an exceedance of the operational emission thresholds. The EDSP EIRs did not evaluate consistency with the applicable clean air plan; however, operational emissions were determined to be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The proposed project would contribute to this significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EDSP EIRs but would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those previously identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with conflict with an air quality plan would occur. (b) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants As demonstrated below, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant with implementation of the Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, and modified below. However, the proposed project would violate air quality standards due to operational -related emissions; therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. The proposed project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs but would not result in operational impacts that are new or more significant than those analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Both State and federal governments have established health -based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants: CO, ozone (03), NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. As identified above, BAAQMD is under State non - attainment status for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The Air Basin is also classified as non - attainment for both the federal ozone 8-hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24-hour standard. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 292 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 38 Air quality standards for the proposed project are regulated by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for operational -related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not: • Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards; • Generate average daily construction emissions of ROG, NO, or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or • Generate average operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day. The following sections describe the proposed project's construction- and operational -related air quality impacts and CO impacts. Construction Emissions.As discussed above, the EDSP EIRs found that that proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction activities. Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0, 3.11/2.0, 3.11/3.0, and 3.11/4.0, and SM-AQ-1 were identified, but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. During construction of the proposed project, construction dust would affect local and regional air quality at various times during build -out period of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months combined with the fine, silty soils of the region create a high potential for dust generation. Emissions during the grading phase of construction are primarily associated with exhaust from large earth moving equipment and dust generated by grading activities. Emissions in later stages of construction would primarily be associated with construction employee commute vehicles, asphalt paving, mobile equipment, stationary equipment, and architectural coatings. The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 near the construction activity. Depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could affect existing or future residential areas within or near the project. Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM1o). With implementation of these Basic Best Management Practices for Construction -Related Fugitive Dust Emissions, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts. In addition to dust related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NO, ROGs and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 293 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 39 congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site. Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) version 2022.1, consistent with BAAQMD recommendations. The proposed project would include phased construction, which would consist of Phase 1 from June 2024 to June 2026, Phase 2 from June 2025 to June 2027, and Phase 3 from June 2024 to June 2034. Overall, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately 10 years and is anticipated to be fully improved by 2034. Phase 1 would include 128 residential units, 23,090 square feet of parking lot area, 101,780 square feet of total non -parking asphalt, 26,800 square feet of hardscape, and 51,000 square feet of landscaping on approximately 6.5 acres. Phase 2 would include 110 residential units, 11,790 square feet of parking lot area, 60,400 square feet of total non -parking asphalt, 30,980 square feet of hardscape, and 111,000 square feet of landscaping on approximately 7.2 acres. Phase 3 would include the limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses on approximately 130 acres. The construction worker and vendor trips per day during Phases 1 and 2 were provided by the project applicant, which was included in CaIEEMod. Cut and fill from project grading would be balanced on -site. This analysis also assumes the use of Tier 2 construction equipment, as required by current CARB OFFROAD regulations. Construction -related emissions are presented in Table D. CaIEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A. Table D: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day Project Construction ROG Average Daily Emissions 14.5 BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 Exceed Threshold? No Source: LSA (October 2023). BMP = Best Management Practices NO. 31.2 54.0 No Exhaust PM10 41.3 82.0 No Fugitive Exhaust Fugitive Dust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 0.1 10.4 3.2 BMP 54.0 BMP No No No As shown in Table D, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant for ROG, NO, PM2.5, and PM10 exhaust emissions. BAAQMD requires implementation of BAAQMD's Basic Best Management Practices for Construction -Related Fugitive Dust Emissions (best management practices) to minimize construction fugitive dust impacts. The EDSP EIRs identified Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 and Supplemental Measure SM-AQ-1 to minimize emission of dust. BAAQMD has since adopted newer and more restrictive dust control measures to reduce construction dust and construction vehicle emissions to which the project applicant must adhere in order to reduce this construction impact to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, has been modified, as shown below (with additions in underline and deletions in ctrikcthrough), to include BAAQMD's most current best management practices and require that construction equipment meets the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 2 emissions 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 294 j) City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 40 standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent. Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0 would still be applicable to the proposed project. SM-AQ-1: In addition to the measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the East Dublin EIR, the City of Dublin shall: a) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. d) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. e) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. f) All visible mud or dirt tracked -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. g) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. h) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. i) Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. k) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. I) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Dublin regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. m) During construction of the proposed project, the project contractor shall ensure all off -road diesel -powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or more used for the project construction at a minimum meets the California Air Resources Board Tier 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 295 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 41 2 emissions standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent. Verification shall be provided to the City for confirmation. With implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above, and Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to construction period emissions compared to those previously identified in the EDSP EIRs. Operational Emissions.The EDSP EIRs found that proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with operational activities. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0, 3.11/6.0, 3.11/7.0, 3.11/8.0, 3.11/9.0, 3.11/10.0, and 3.11/11.0 and SM-AQ-2 and SM- AQ-3 were identified but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts associated with the proposed project are those related to mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, the use of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products). PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline -powered engines have small rates of PM emissions compared with diesel -powered vehicles. Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and consumer products. Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table E. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the project's trip generation estimate, as described in Section 18. Transportation/Traffic, which estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately 22,618 average daily trips associated with the proposed residential, limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses. In addition, CalEEMod assumes that the proposed project would not include any wood -burning fireplaces. When project -specific data were not available, default assumptions (e.g., energy usage, water usage, and solid waste generation) from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions. The primary emissions associated with the project would be regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants would be rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project; emissions would be released in other areas of the Air Basin. The daily and annual emissions associated with project operational trip generation, energy, and area sources are identified in Table E for ROG, NO, PM10, and PM2.5. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 296 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 42 Table E: Project Operational Emissions ROG NO), Proposed Project Emissions PM10 PM2.5 Pounds Per Day Mobile Source Emissions Area Source Emissions Energy Source Emissions Total Project Emissions BAAQMD Thresholds Exceed Threshold? Tons Per Year Mobile Source Emissions Area Source Emissions Energy Source Emissions Total Project Emissions BAAQMD Thresholds Exceed Threshold? EDSP EIR (Mobile Source Emissions) Fallon Village SEIR (Mobile Source Emissions) BAAQMD Thresholds Exceed Threshold? Source: LSA (October 2023). 53.0 105.5 2.2 160.7 54.0 Yes 9.7 19.2 0.4 29.4 10.0 Yes 46.2 0.8 39.6 86.6 54.0 Yes 8.4 0.1 7.2 15.8 10.0 Yes EDSP EIRs Emissions 109.5 116.9 54.0 Yes 102.9 116.6 54.0 Yes 140.2 36.0 0.1 0.1 3.0 3.0 143.4 39.2 82.0 54.0 Yes No 25.6 6.6 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 0.6 26.2 7.2 15.0 10.0 Yes No 78.9 - 89.9 - 82.0 Yes The results shown in Table E indicate the project would exceed the significance criteria for daily and annual ROG, NO, and PM10 emissions. As shown in Table E, PM2.5 emissions would be below the thresholds. As discussed above, the EDSP EIRs found that proposed development would result in significant and unavoidable impacts associated with operation activities. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0, 3.11/6.0, 3.11/7.0, 3.11/8.0, 3.11/9.0, 3.11/10.0, and 3.11/11.0 and SM-AQ-2 and SM-AQ-3 were identified but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less - than -significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. The EDSP EIRs evaluated emissions estimates using the URBEMIS-2002 emission model, which is now considered outdated and only calculated mobile source emissions; area and energy source emissions were not evaluated. As discussed above, the proposed project would generate approximately 22,618 average daily trips, while buildout of the uses evaluated 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 297 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 43 in the Fallon Village SEIR would generate approximately 45,550 average daily trips. Therefore, although the proposed project's total emissions are higher than the mobile source emissions identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, area and energy source emissions were not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. If area and energy source emissions were included in the EDSP EIRs, the total operational emissions would have been higher than the proposed project. Emissions associated with area and energy sources 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 energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas) and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, the use of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products) was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. As such, although the proposed project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs, it would not result in operational impacts that are new or more significant than those analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Localized CO Impacts.The EDSP EIRs found that the project would generate additional traffic volumes, increasing local levels of carbon monoxide. However, the EDSP EIRs determined that such increases would be below the standard of air quality significance. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include recommended methodologies for screening and quantifying concentrations of localized CO levels for intersections that would be in a project vicinity. A screening level analysis using guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was performed to determine the impacts of the project. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less -than -significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met: • The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans. • Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. • The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below - grade roadway). Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission's congestion management programs. The proposed project would generate approximately 2,068 AM peak hour trips and 2,523 PM peak hour trips. The project's contribution to peak hour traffic volumes at intersections in the vicinity of the project site 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 298 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 44 would be well below 44,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards. Overall, with implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above, and Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 and 3.11/3.0, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts associated with the violation of air quality standards as compared to those identified in the EDSP EIRs. (c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations With implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations would occur with implementation of the project. Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non - cancer health risks. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include residential uses and Cottonwood Creek School located adjacent to the northern border of the project site. The proposed project site is located in an urban area in close proximity to existing residential uses that could be exposed to diesel emission exhaust during the construction period. As such, to estimate the potential cancer risk from project construction equipment exhaust (including diesel particulate matter), a construction health risk assessment (HRA), which evaluates construction -period health risk to off -site receptors, was performed for the proposed project, and the analysis is presented below. To estimate the potential cancer risk associated with construction of the proposed project from equipment exhaust (including diesel particulate matter), a dispersion model was used to translate an emission rate from the source location to a concentration at the receptor location of interest (i.e., a nearby residence and worksites). Dispersion modeling varies from a simpler, more conservative screening -level analysis to a more complex and refined detailed analysis. This refined assessment was conducted using the CARB exposure methodology with the air dispersion modeling performed using the USEPA dispersion model AERMOD. The model provides a detailed estimate of exhaust concentrations based on site and source geometry, source emissions strength, distance from the source to the receptor, and meteorological data. Table F below identifies the results of the analysis utilizing the CaIEEMod outputs, assuming the use of Tier 2 construction equipment, consistent with current minimum CARB standards. Model snapshots of the sources are provided in Appendix B. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 299 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 45 Table F: Unmitigated Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off -Site Receptors Project Construction Carcinogenic Inhalation Health Risk in One Million Chronic Inhalation Hazard Index Acute Inhalation Hazard Index Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Maximally Exposed Residential Receptor 19.20 0.054 0.000 0.268 Maximally Exposed School Receptor 17.52 0.045 0.000 0.223 Maximally Exposed Worker Receptor 1.36 0.052 0.000 0.261 Threshold? 10.0 1.0 1.0 0.30 Exceed? Yes No No No Source: LSA (October 2023). As shown in Table F, the project's maximum cancer risk for the residential receptor maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be 19.20 in one million and the school receptor risk would be 17.52 in one million, which would exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 1.36 in one million, which would not exceed the BAAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The chronic hazard index would be 0.054 for the residential receptor MEI, 0.045 for the school receptor MEI, and 0.052 for the worker receptor MEI, which would be below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the acute hazard index would be nominal (0.000), which would not exceed the threshold of 1.0. The PM2.5 concentration would be 0.268 for the residential receptor MEI, 0.223 for the school receptor MEI, and 0.261 for the worker receptor MEI, which would be below the threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. However, construction contractors would be required to implement BAAQMD's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and use construction equipment that meets the CARB Tier 2 emissions standards equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or equivalent as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above. Table G identifies the results of the analysis with implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, as modified above. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 300 City of Dublin Table G: Mitigated Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off -Site Receptors Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 46 Project Construction Carcinogenic Inhalation Health Risk in One Million Chronic Inhalation Hazard Index Acute Inhalation Hazard Index Annual PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Maximally Exposed Residential Receptor 2.90 0.003 0.000 0.062 Maximally Exposed School Receptor 2.62 0.003 0.000 0.052 Maximally Exposed Worker Receptor 0.21 0.003 0.000 0.060 Threshold? 10.0 1.0 1.0 0.30 Exceed? No No No No Source: LSA (October 2023). As shown in Table G, the project's maximum cancer risk for the residential receptor MEI would be 2.90 in one million, the school receptor risk would be 2.62 in one million, and the worker receptor risk would be 0.21 in one million, which would be below the BAAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of modified Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of modified Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations would occur. (d) Odors During construction, the various diesel -powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is, therefore, considered less than significant. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the land uses established in Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05 and would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, it would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with odors would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 301 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 47 With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as modified above, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) BAAQMD. 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19. Website: https://www.baagmd.gov/"/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air- plan/attachment-a=proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed October 2023). BAAQMD. 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. https://www.baagmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines (accessed October 2023). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 302 City of Dublin Biological Resources Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 48 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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 state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Environmental Setting The following discussion of biological resources within the project site is based on the results of a Biological Resources Assessment, special -status plant survey, listed large brachiopod wet season survey, and arborist report prepared for the proposed project (Appendices C through F, respectively). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 303 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 49 The project site consists entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. The land uses on nearby properties consist of agricultural, residential, open space, and commercial uses as well. Five habitat types were identified within the study area during the plant surveys: non- native annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh, and riparian woodlands. These habitats are discussed below. Non -Native Annual Grassland Most of the project site consists of non-native annual grassland and much of this grassland is currently grazed by cattle. The species include wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum spp. leporinum), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), among others. Common non-native forbs observed during field surveys include black mustard (Brassica nigra), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), filaree (Erodium spp.), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). Seasonal Wetland/Pond The seasonal wetlands across the project site are characterized by Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), seaside barley (Hordeum marinum), Baltic rush, (Juncus balticus), bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), common toad rush (Juncus bufonius), beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), timothy grass (Phleum alpinum), bulrush (Typha latifolia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), hyssop lossestrife (Lythrym hyssopifolia), brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Congdon's tarplant, and rabbit's foot grass. Drainages Six drainages exist on the project site. One intermittent channel lies within the riparian woodland on the northwestern corner, four drainages are spread within the hills of the central northern part of the project site, and one drainage is located along the eastern project site boundary. Dominant vegetation within the drainage features consist primarily of salt grass (Distichilis spicata), iris leaf rush (Juncus xiphioides) and rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) with sporadic yerba mansa (Anamopsis californica) and watercress (Nasturtium officinale) within the northwestern corner. Emergent Marsh The emergent marsh, located in the southwest corner of the project site, contains water year- round and is primarily characterized by a large stand of cattails (Typha sp.). The cattail stand covers the entire emergent marsh along with a few scattered willow trees (Salix spp.) present along the boundary of Croak Road. Several hydrophytic species are present within the willow undergrowth such as, cutleaf water parsnip (Berula erecta), prickly lettuce, and rabbits foot grass. Riparian Woodland A group of willow (Salix sp) and cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) surround the quarry pond within the northern portion of the project site. Additionally, a dense group of willow, 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 304 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 50 cottonwood, and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees surround the intermittent drainage within the northwestern corner of the site. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or degradation of sensitive habitat. The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant impacts related to special -status wildlife, including San Joaquin kit fox, California red - legged frog (CRLF), California tiger salamander (CTS), western pond turtle, tri-colored blackbird, golden eagle, burrowing owl, American badger, special -status invertebrates and others. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce significant impacts. One significant and unavoidable impact was identified related to the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.7/1.0 Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should be minimized and be restricted to those areas actually designated for the construction of improvements. MM 3.7/5.0 All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent erosion. Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs, herbs, and grasses should be used for revegetation of areas to remains as natural open space. The introduction of non-native plant species should be avoided. MM 3.7/14.0 The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and development activities adjacent to streams and wetland areas and require revegetation of all ground disturbance immediately after construction to reduce erosion potential. Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall require project applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of the project submittal. MM 3.7/16.0 Existing sensitive habitats shall be avoided and protected where feasible. MM 3.7/17.0 Construction near drainages shall take place during the dry season. MM 3.7/19.0 The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the Project area should be restricted to avoid impacts on wildlife. The City shall require any poisoning programs to be done in cooperation with and under supervision of the Alameda County Department of Agriculture. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 305 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 51 MM 3.7/20.0 The City shall require development applicants to conduct a pre - construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification (clearing construction and road site, etc.) to verify the presence of sensitive species, especially the San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors, the red -legged frog, the western pond turtle, the California tiger salamander, the tri-colored blackbird and other species of concern. MM 3.7/22.0 Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 100 feet) around breeding sites of the red -legged frog, California tiger salamander and the Western pond turtle identified by MM 3.7/20.0. MM 3.7 /23.0 Maintain a natural open space zone (Golden Eagle Protection Zone) around the golden eagle nest located in the northeast corner of the planning area. Exceptions to this setback will have to be approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), based on field examinations of the site to determine what constitutes "harassment" of the eagles at this particular location. Construction within this protection zone will not be allowed unless it is determined that the eagles have ceased to use the nest site for two consecutive years as verified by the USFWS. MM 3.7 /24.0 During the golden eagle reproductive period (July -January), an additional temporal buffer will be established within 250 feet of the Golden Eagle Protection Zone. During this period, construction and development activities will not be allowed within this temporal zone. MM 3.7 /25.0 Partial mitigation for the loss of useable foraging habitat will be provided by MM 3.7 / 23 which establishes a Golden Eagle Protection Zone. Additional mitigation will be provided by the 571.1 acres of Open Space and 2,672.3 acres of Rural Residential land use of the Project. Combined, the Golden Eagle Protection Zone and the 3,243.4 acres of land projected for open space protection or low intensity development would provide suitable foraging habitat. MM 3.7/27.0 Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 300 feet) around known or those identified by pre -construction surveys (MM 3.7/20.0) nesting sites of the burrowing owl and breeding sites of the American badger during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (March — September). 2002 SEIR The 2002 SEIR determined that implementation of the EDPO project would result in potentially significant supplemental impacts to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams, sensitive habitats not previously analyzed, special -status plant species, San Joaquin kit fox, California red - legged frog (CRLF), special -status invertebrates, California tiger salamander (CTS), nesting raptors, golden eagle, burrowing owl, nesting passerines, and bat species. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project: 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 306 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 52 SM-BIO-1 (reference only): A Resource Management Plan (RMP) shall be prepared for the Project area for the City of Dublin's review and approval prior to or concurrent with submittal of any land use entitlement requests. The RMP shall include all properties in the Project area and any necessary off -site mitigation lands, and address consistency with local policies, such as the Stream Restoration Program and the Grazing Management Plan and mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this SEIR (for the full text of this mitigation see Chapter 3.3 [in the SEIR]). SM-BIO-2: Plant surveys, as outlined in United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocols, shall be conducted across the Project area in early spring, late spring, and late summer to confirm presence or absence of special -status plant species. Results of these surveys shall be addressed in the RMP (SM-BIO-1) and in project -level environmental review of all subsequent development applications in the Project area. SM-BIO-3: Once presence is determined for a special -status plant species, areas supporting the species should be avoided to the extent feasible. SM-BIO-4: If a special -status plant species cannot be avoided, then the area containing the plant species must be measured and one of the following steps must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 ratio (by acreage): a) Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal amount of acreage either within the Project area or off -site that contains the plant; or b) Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost or use seeds from another source within the Tri-valley area and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within the Project area or off -site. Such area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. If the plants fail to establish after a five-year period, then step "a" above must be implemented. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful. SM-BIO-5: To the extent feasible, implementation of the Project through subsequent preparation of Stage 2 development proposals on a property -by -property basis shall be designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States (which include seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams) within the Project area. Examples of avoidance and minimization include (1) reducing the size of future individual development projects within the Project area, (2) design future development projects within the Project area so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts to waters of the United 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 307 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 53 States, and (3) establish and maintain wetland or upland vegetated buffers to protect open water such as streams. In order to protect the particularly sensitive Arroyo willow riparian woodland and red -legged frog habitat found in the Fallon Road drainage from Fallon Road upstream to its terminus, future development projects within the Project area either shall completely avoid this drainage or limit impacts to bridge crossings (as opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacting features. SM-BIO-6: To the extent that avoidance and minimization are not feasible and wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters will be filled, such impacts shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (measures by acreage) within the Project area if feasible, through the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map for any property within the Project area, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure. SM-BIO-7: If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate the fill of wetlands or other waters at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off -site location acceptable to the City. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure. SM-BIO-8: Botanically sensitive habitats shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1 above. SM-BIO-9: Future development of properties within the Project area shall comply with the amended Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan which reflects the latest protocols for kit fox habitat evaluations, presence/absence surveys, pre - construction surveys and precautionary construction measures. SM-BIO-10: San Joaquin kit fox habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1 above. SM-BIO-11: Focused surveys following USFWS protocol shall be conducted in habitat considered suitable for CRLF on properties within the Project area which have not already been surveyed. The current protocol (USFWS 1997b) requires that two daytime and two nighttime surveys be performed over a suitable four -day period. Results of these surveys shall be submitted to the City for review. SM-BIO-12: Specific CRLF habitat areas, including the drainage upstream and east of the current Fallon Road alignment shall be included in and protected and enhanced by 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 308 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 54 implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1 above. SM-BIO-13: To the extent feasible, development on individual properties within the Project area shall avoid all areas of identified suitable CRLF aquatic and dispersal habitat. Specifically, development should avoid aquatic habitat and provide a 300 to 500-foot buffer on each side of any stream which provides CRLF habitat. Limited permanent development may occur within this buffer zone (such as a trail through the length of the buffer zone, or a bridge crossing across the buffer zones) so long as it will have only minor impacts on the habitat. Limited temporary development activity may occur within this buffer zone to create trails, install bridges, etc. and to allow for grading activities along the edge of the buffer zone, so long as such activity will have only minor impacts on the habitat. SM-BIO-14: If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS, shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. This mitigation, to be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City, shall be required prior to submittal of the Stage 2 Development Plans and tentative maps for any specific property within the Project area. In selecting off -site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high -quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. If the identified mitigation lands have been approved by the City, the following guidelines [outlined in SM-BIO-15] implemented prior to and during construction would reduce impacts to individual CRLF and preserved CRLF habitat. SM-BIO-15: The following construction -related CRLF avoidance and protection measures shall be followed for all future development activity in the Project area, on a property - by -property basis: ■ Prior to construction, a map shall be prepared to delineate upland areas from preserved wetland areas. ■ The wetland construction boundary shall be fenced to prohibit the movement of CRLF into the construction area and control siltation and disturbance to wetland habitat. Following installation of fencing, its property location shall be verified by a qualified biologist. The biologist shall ensure that at no time during construction is vegetation removed inside of the fenced area. If construction necessitates the removal of vegetation within the fenced area, additional mitigation will be required. Additionally, the biologist shall walk the length of the fence once each construction day to ensure the CRLF are not trapped within the enclosure. The biologist shall walk the length of the fence more than once a day in areas where CRLF are most abundant. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 309 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 55 ■ Pre -construction surveys within the construction zone shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with appropriate permits to handle CRLF. If no CRLF are detected during these surveys then construction activities may proceed. If CRLF are found within the construction disturbance zone, they shall immediately be moved passively, or captured and moved, to suitable upstream sites. ■ All construction employees shall participate in an endangered species/special- status habitat education program to be presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The program shall cover such topics as identifying wetland habitat and areas used by CRLF, identification by CRLF by photos, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and the consequence of violating the terms of these acts. ■ All construction adjacent to wetlands shall be regularly monitored to ensure that impacts do not exceed those included within the protect standards of the mitigations. Work performed within 500 feet of aquatic habitat shall be monitored by the biologist, who shall document pre -project and post -project conditions to ensure compliance. ■ During construction, the biologist shall be on site whenever construction within any aquatic habitats is to occur. Any construction activity within ordinary high water shall be photo documented by the biologist. In addition, a biologist with the appropriate permits to relocate CRLF shall be available for construction as needed. SM-BIO-16: Special -status invertebrate habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1 above. SM-BIO-17: The following vernal pool habitat surveys and mitigation shall be implemented for each property within the Project area: ■ Surveys of potential habitat for special status invertebrates are required. If suitable habitat is identified, then such habitat shall be surveyed to determine whether it is occupied by special -status invertebrates. If impacts to occupied habitat will occur (including direct impact as a result of habitat destruction, and indirect impact due to disturbance of areas within 250 feet of occupied habitat), the following measures shall be followed: a) Preservation: For every acre of habitat directly impacted at least two vernal pool credits shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or, in accordance with USFWS evaluation of site -specific conservation values, three acres of vernal pool habitat may be preserved within the Project area or off -site as approved by the USFWS. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 310 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 56 b) Creation: For every acre of habitat indirectly impacted, at least one vernal pool credit shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank, or, in accordance with USFWS evaluation of site -specific conservation values, two acres of vernal pool habitat may be created and monitored within the Project area or on off -site as approved by the USFWS. ■ Vernal pool habitat and associated upland areas which are preserved on site shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity. ■ All avoided habitat on site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during the time of construction. The monitoring biologist shall have authority to stop all activities that may result in destruction or take of listed invertebrate species or destruction of their habitat. Resumption of construction shall occur after appropriate corrective measures have been taken. The biologist shall report any unauthorized impacts to USFWS. ■ Fencing shall be placed and maintained around any and all preserved vernal pool habitat. All on -site construction personnel shall receive instruction regarding the presence of listed species and their habitat maintained around any and all preserved vernal pool habitat. SM-BIO-18: California tiger salamander habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1. SM-BIO-19: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a 1:1 ratio shall be set aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat shall be mitigated by preserving upland on -site, or if necessary, by preserving currently occupied upland tiger salamander habitat off - site. Aquatic habitat shall be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic California tiger salamander breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat. This mitigation, included in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City prior to submittal of Stage 2 development plans and tentative maps. In selecting off -site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high -quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. SM-BIO-20: A qualified biologist shall conduct pre -construction surveys for nesting raptors. If an active nest is found the following mitigation measures shall also be implemented. SM-BIO-21: If construction must occur during the nesting season, all potential nesting trees within the footprint of development should be removed prior to the nesting season to prevent occupied nests from being present when construction begins. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 311 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 57 SM-BIO-22: Construction should occur between August 1 and February 1 to avoid disturbance of nesting raptors during the nesting season. This construction window could be adjusted if monitoring efforts determine that nesting was completed before August 1. SM-B1O-23: If removal of nesting trees is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting raptor survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist prior to tree disturbance. SM-BIO-24: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nesting tree. Buffer zones shall be no smaller than 200 feet. SM-B1O-25: If construction is scheduled when young birds have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged as determined by a qualified biologist. SM-BIO-26: Nesting raptor habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-B10 1. SM-BIO-27: The territory of the golden eagle nesting pair shall be included in and protected and enhanced by implementation of a Resource Management Plan, as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-B10-1. The protected golden eagle foraging territory affects areas in the northern portion of the Project area designated for Rural Residential/Agricultural uses. Development standards and uses for these areas shall incorporate the following measures: ■ Homesites in this portion of the Project area shall be located in valley bottoms adjacent to existing or planned residential development. ■ Permitted agricultural uses shall be limited to grazing to maintain suitable golden eagle foraging habitat. ■ Rodent control in this portion of the Project area shall be prohibited. SM-BIO-28: If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 - August 31), preconstruction survey should be conducted on the entire Project area and within 150 meters (500 feet) of the Project area prior to any ground disturbance. To avoid take of over -wintering birds, all burrows should be surveyed 30 days prior to ground disturbance between the months of September 1 and January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the site should be resurveyed. SM-BIO-29: If over -wintering birds are present no disturbance should occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 312 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 58 passive relocation techniques, following CDFG 1995 guidelines, should be used rather than trapping. If no over -wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nesting season. SM-BIO-30: Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified by pre -construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of individuals (February 1- September 1). SM-BIO-31: If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting burrowing owl survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on site or adjacent to the site. All active burrows shall be identified. SM-BIO-32: All active nesting burrows shall have an established 250-foot exclusion zone around the burrow. SM-BIO-33: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet fledged, a 250-foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by August 31. SM-BIO-34: When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a 2:1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below. SM-BIO-35: A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, shall be acquired, and permanently preserved and protected. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. SM-BIO-36: The project proponent shall provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG. SM-BIO-37: Burrowing owl habitat shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-SM-1. SM-BIO-38: If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 1- August 15), all potential nesting sites and structures (i.e., shrubs and tules) within the footprint of development should be removed prior to the beginning of the nesting season. However, because the removal of grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for impacts to California horned lark are addressed more particularly in Mitigation Measures SM-B10-39 to SM-B10-41, below. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 313 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 59 SM-BIO-39: If removal of nesting trees and shrubs within the footprint of development is infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting bird survey should be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. These surveys shall cover grassland habitat for potential nesting California horned lark. Birds present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on site or adjacent to the site. SM-BIO-40: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the species, shall be established around the nest site. Buffer zones can range between 75 feet to 100 feet. SM-BIO-41: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young have not yet fledged, an exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by July 15. SM-BIO-42: Habitat for nesting passerines shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in SM- B10-1. SM-BI0-43: A qualified bat biologist shall conduct occupancy surveys of the Project area to determine whether any mature trees, snags or suitable buildings that would be removed during future project construction provide hibernacula or nursery colony roosting habitat. SM-BI0-44: If presence is observed, removal of roost habitat should be conducted at specific times of the year. Winter roosts are generally occupied between October 15 through January 30 and maternity colonies are generally occupied between February 15 and July 30. If bats are using roost sites that need to be removed, the roosting season of the colony shall be determined, and the removal shall be conducted when the colony is using an alternate roost. SM-BI0-45: Habitat for these bat species shall be included in and shall be protected and enhanced by implementation of the Resource Management Plan as outlined in Mitigation Measure SM-B10-1. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR determined that although the Fallon Village Project proposed a similar type and density of development analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR, due to changes in the project design and identification of new sensitive habitats not identified in the EDSP EIRs, new impacts to biological resources, including California tiger salamander, California red -legged frog, burrowing owl, and western pond turtle were identified. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project: 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 314 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 60 SSM-BIO-1 (revised). If special -status plants cannot be avoided, then the area containing the plant that is to be impacted, and the approximate number of plants to be impacted, must be determined, and the following steps must be taken: a) Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another source within the in Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, and seed an area suitable for supporting the plant, either within the Project area or off -site, at a level sufficient to replace the impacted individuals at a 1:1 ratio on an individual plant and basis, and at a ratio no less than 0.5:1 on an occupied habitat basis. The mitigation site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. If the mitigation site fails to support at least as many plants as were impacted within a five-year period, then step "b" below must be implemented. b) Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal amount of acreage either within the Project area or off -site that contains the plant. Prior to submission of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful. SSM-BIO-2 (revised) (burrowing owl). During the breeding season (February 1-August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel. SSM-BIO-3 (revised) (burrowing owl). Pre -construction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any ground disturbance between September 1 and January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the site should be re -surveyed. If no over -wintering birds are present, burrows should be removed prior to the nesting season. If over -wintering birds are present, no disturbance should occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area during this period, passive relocation measures must be prepared according to current CDFG burrowing owl guidelines, approved by CDFG, and completed prior to construction. SSM-BIO-4 (revised) (burrowing owl). If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1-August 31), pre -construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site -specific Project area and within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be maintained during the breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting sites identified in pre -construction 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 315 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 61 surveys to avoid direct loss of individuals. Owls present on site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless evidence indicates otherwise. All active burrows shall be identified. If construction around active nests is scheduled to occur when nests are active (i.e., if they contain, or are assumed to contain, eggs or un- fledged young), a 250-foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after the young have fledged, typically by August 31. If owls are present during the early part of the breeding season, and evidence indicates that they have not yet begun nesting, they may be passively relocated from the site if authorized by CDFG. SSM-BIO-5 (revised) (burrowing owl). If destruction of occupied (breeding or non - breeding season) burrows, or any burrows that were found to be occupied during pre - construction surveys, is unavoidable, a strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat, and will include permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident owl. A plan shall be developed and approved by CDFG describing creation or enhancement of burrows, maintenance of burrows and management of foraging habitat, monitoring procedures and significance criteria, funding assurance, annual reporting requirements to CDFG, and contingency and remediation measures. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BI0-1(loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats). Impacts to central coast riparian scrub habitat shall be mitigated through the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the proposed aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone management areas on -site. If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off -site location acceptable to the City. Any riparian mitigation areas shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Restored habitat shall be monitored for a period of five years including preparation of an annual report each year. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM-BI0-2 (California red -legged frog). If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Mitigation will be required at a 3:1 replacement ratio for essential aquatic habitat (including verified aquatic breeding habitat) and associated upland habitat within 100 m of essential aquatic habitat, and at a 1.5:1 replacement ratio for dispersal habitat as defined herein (Figure 3.3-D Exhibit 4.7.4). Alternately, the latter ratio may be reduced at the discretion of the City if additional essential aquatic habitat is provided. The amount of reduction shall be proportional to the amount of additional essential habitat provided, up to a maximum reduction of fifty percent. Because aquatic breeding habitat and perennial water bodies providing summer refugia are expected to limit CRLF population size in the dry eastern 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 316 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 62 Alameda/Contra Costa region more than the availability of suitable upland habitat, flexibility in this mitigation requirement (i.e., to allow for the creation of ponds to serve as partial mitigation for impacts to upland habitat) provides an opportunity to create greater benefit to CRLF populations on a landscape level. This mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City. In selecting off -site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high -quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM-B10-3 (California tiger salamander). To compensate for the permanent loss of up to 1.31 acres of aquatic CTS breeding habitat, developers of individual parcels will create and/or enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio (mitigation to impact, on an acreage basis), in or adjacent to areas currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to provide a high likelihood of establishment and persistence of a breeding population. In selecting off - site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high -quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar method and shall be managed for use by CTS by a conservation entity. This mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City for approval. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM-BIO-4 (California tiger salamander). To compensate for the permanent loss of up to 658.3 acres of upland CTS habitat, developers of individual parcels will acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat at a 1:1 ratio (mitigation to impact, on an acreage basis), in or adjacent to areas currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding pond. Alternately, this ratio may be reduced (i.e., to less than 1:1 mitigation for lost upland habitat), at the discretion of the City, if additional aquatic breeding habitat (beyond that required by SM-BIO-11) is provided. The amount of reduction shall be proportional to the amount of additional essential habitat provided, up to a maximum reduction of fifty percent. Because aquatic breeding habitat is expected to limit CTS population size in the dry eastern Alameda/Contra Costa region more than the availability of suitable upland habitat, flexibility in this mitigation requirement (i.e., to allow for the creation of breeding ponds to serve as partial mitigation for impacts to aestivation habitat) may benefit CTS populations on a landscape level. This mitigation requirement may be combined with SM-BIO-11 from the 2002 SEIR so that the overall mitigation results in creation/restoration and preservation of breeding ponds (to mitigate impacts to aquatic breeding habitat according to SM-BIO-11) and preservation of associated upland habitat 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 317 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 63 (to mitigate impacts to upland habitat according to SM-BIO-12). In selecting off -site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, selecting mitigation land within the in Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, to account for local loss of proposed critical habitat, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high -quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar method and shall be managed for use by CTS by a conservation entity. This mitigation shall be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City for approval. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Dublin 580 Fallon East: CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan9 (CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan) (Appendix G) outlines the measures that will be implemented by the project applicant in compliance with the mitigation requirements identified in the EDSP EIRs and listed above. Additionally, it was prepared to satisfy SM-BIO-1, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which requires a Resource Management Plan be prepared for the project area prior to or concurrent with submittal of any land use entitlement requests. The Resource Management Plan for East Dublin Properties (East Dublin Properties RMP) was prepared in 2004 and includes the project site. The CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan addresses applicable mitigation measures for the development of the proposed project that are consistent with the East Dublin Properties RMP. (a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species Special -status species are defined as follows: ■ Species that are listed, formally proposed for listing, or designated as candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); ■ Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); ■ Plant species on California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; ■ Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); ■ Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines; and 9 WRA, Environmental Consultants. 2024. Dublin 580 Fallon East: CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan. February 22. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 318 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 64 ■ Species considered being a taxon of special concern by the relevant local agencies. Special Status Plant Species Based on habitat types and nearby California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences, a total of 12 special status plant species were determined to have a potential to occur on the project site. Nine of these species were found to be absent from the project site based on the results of the 2017 and 2022 plant surveys. Three special status plants were observed on the project site during the August 2022 survey - Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), which is a CNPS List 1B species, saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum), and San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquiniana). All three of these species are CNPS List 1B species. Because these species are present on the project site, development of the proposed project would impact special -status plant species. Consistent with Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2, identified in the 2002 SEIR, a rare plant survey has been prepared for the proposed project (Appendix D). In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-3 and SM-BIO-4, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, as well as SSM-BIO-1 as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR to mitigate impacts to special status plant species. These measures require permanent preservation of areas that contain special -status plants or replacement planting. As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, several special status plant surveys identifying and mapping sensitive plan populations have been completed for the project site. Most of these sensitive populations occur within the proposed grading footprint and cannot be avoided. In order to minimize impacts to special status plant species, a Mitigation Plan consistent with the requirements of SM-BIO-4, SSM-BIO-1, and the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) would be prepared and implemented. The Mitigation Plan would include the preservation of on- and off -site mitigation measures in perpetuity, and/or seed harvest with subsequent establishment of an equal area for each population at a 1:1 ratio on an individual plant and basis, and at a ratio no less than 0.5:1 on an occupied habitat basis within 5 years, preserved in perpetuity. On -site mitigation opportunities may include deed -restricted and preserved creek, wetland, and upland habitat potentially suitable to establish populations of the rare plants impacted by the proposed project. Potential off -site mitigation would include compensatory mitigation on parcels within the same regional watershed and the purchase of mitigation credits from the N3 Ranch10 mitigation bank or other agency -approved alternative mitigation bank or turnkey mitigation site. 10 The N3 Ranch is an approximately 50,000-acre private property located south of the City of Livermore in Alameda, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus counties. It is a suitable mitigation site for mitigating the proposed project's impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S and State, as well as a location for species - specific mitigation. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 319 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 65 Overall, implementation of these measures would ensure impacts to special -status plant species are reduced to less -than -significant levels. Special -Status Wildlife A focused review of literature and data sources was conducted in order to determine which special -status wildlife species had potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. Current agency status information was obtained from USFWS11 for species listed as Threatened or Endangered, as well as Proposed and Candidate species for listing, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and from CDFW12 13 for species listed as Threatened or Endangered by the state of California under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or listed as "species of special concern" by CDFW. A list of special -status wildlife species with potential to occur in the project vicinity is provided in the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C). Based on the results of the database search, literature review, and the field survey, 35 special -status wildlife species were evaluated for the project area. Of these species, 21 species were determined to be present or potentially present on the project site due to the presence of suitable habitat and are discussed in detail due to their status and their close proximity of occupied habitat. These species are further discussed below. Foraging or Nesting Birds. A total of 17 bird species were identified as having potential to occur on the project site. Three species - red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and Cooper's hawk were all observed during the August 2022 survey and potentially utilize the project site for foraging and/or nesting. Nine bird species including the tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, great horned owl, white-tailed kite, western screech owl, red -shouldered hawk and barn owl were all identified to have a high potential to occur on the site in a nesting and foraging capacity. The northern harrier and California horned lark were identified as having a moderate potential to be present on the project, while the sharp -shinned hawk, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and the American peregrine falcon have a potential to use the project site for foraging but are unlikely to nest on the project site. The proposed project has the potential to impact bird species, either directly through the removal of nests and foraging habitat or indirectly from noise or human presence during construction of the proposed project. Breeding seasons vary from year to year depending on the species, weather, and other conditions, but nesting birds could be disturbed anytime from February through August. Within the project area, birds may nest in trees, shrubs, grasslands, bare ground, and on manmade structures and equipment. Breeding birds are most likely to abandon nests early in the nest cycle. If the young birds are forced to fledge early, they could be subject to predation or starvation, which could result in reproductive failure. Construction- 11 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species. Accessed on September 2, 2022. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 12 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. State and federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare plants of California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=109390&inline 13 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022b. Special animals. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=109406&inline 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 320 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 66 related activities could result in loss or abandonment of an active burrowing nest through direct disturbance of an occupied burrow or through noise, vibration, or visual disturbance. In addition, construction -related activities could result in harm to wintering burrowing owls, should they occur in or near the construction area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-38 through SM-BIO-42, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which require a preconstruction nesting bird survey be conducted during the nesting bird season and establishment of buffer zones around nest sites would reduce potential impacts to nesting bird species to a less than significant level. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0 and 3.7/25.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, and SM-BIO-20 through SM-BIO-27, identified in the 2002 SEIR, would reduce potential impacts to white-tailed kite, golden eagle, and other raptor species to less than significant levels, by requiring pre - construction surveys, establishment of buffer/exclusion zones, and protection of habitat through the Resource Management Plan. The proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-28 through SM-BIO-37, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which require preconstruction burrowing owl surveys, the establishment of various exclusionary buffers during construction, details requirements for replacing or enhancing burrows and foraging habitat, and requires funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. In addition, SSM-BIO-2, SSM- BIO-3, SSM-BIO-4, and SSM-BIO-5 identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, which also require preconstruction burrowing owl surveys and establishment of buffers, would also be implemented to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls. Implementation of these measures would ensure impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less -than -significant levels by requiring pre - construction surveys, establishment of buffer/exclusion zones, and protection of habitat through the RMP. As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, available documentation for the project site, including CDFW's CNDDB, the Biological Resources Assessment, and unpublished results from site visits by biologists over the past years, indicates that the project site has not been occupied by burrowing owl since 2002. Consistent with SSM- BIO-2, burrowing owl surveys would be conducted on the project site prior to project construction. If burrowing owl is found to occupy the project site, a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan would be prepared in coordination with CDFW, and SSM-BIO-3 through SSM-BIO-5 would be implemented. Overall, implementation of these measures would ensure impacts to foraging and nesting birds, including burrowing owl, are reduced to less -than -significant levels. Pallid Bat, Yuma myotis and Other Bat Species. Given the presence of suitable on -site habitat, the pallid bat and Yuma myotis have a moderate potential to occur on the project site in a foraging and roosting capacity. The Townsend's big -eared bat has a low potential to occur on the site due to the nearby human disturbance. Although no evidence of bats was identified during the site survey, the riparian trees and large eucalyptus and oak trees could provide roosting habitat, while the wetlands and drainages could provide foraging opportunities for 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 321 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 67 bats. Implementation of Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-43 through SM-BIO-45, identified in the 2002 SEIR, which require that a preconstruction survey be conducted and removal of potential roosting habitat be limited, would reduce potential impacts to bat species to a less than significant level. California tiger salamander and California red -legged frog. Two amphibian species, the California tiger salamander (CTS) and the California red legged frog (CRLF), have been observed on the project site during various surveys. Both species have been documented within five miles of the project site, including a large population of CRLF just north of the project site within the Jordan Ranch ponds and drainage channel. The northern half of the project site is located within USFWS-designated critical habitat for CRLF; USFWS-designated critical habitat for CTS is located 2 miles northeast of the project site. CRLF have been observed within the project site and just adjacent to the project site within the ditch along Croak Road. The quarry pond provides suitable breeding habitat for CTS, and CTS were identified during the field survey of the project site in March 2022. The seasonal wetlands and drainages on the project site contain suitable CRLF breeding and dispersal habitat and the multiple ground squirrel burrow complexes provide suitable upland refuge for both species. CRLF and CTS are present on -site and are likely to continue to utilize the site for breeding, foraging and dispersal. Development of the proposed project would result in the loss of breeding, foraging and upland habitat for CRLF and CTS. To mitigate potential impacts to CTS and CRLF, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, SM-BIO-11, SM-BIO-12, SM-BIO-13, SM-BIO-14, SM-BIO-15, SM-BIO-18 and SM-BIO-19, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-8 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-9, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project would mitigate unavoidable impacts to CTS habitat at a 1:1 replacement ratio, pursuant to SM-BIO-19 and consistent with the EACCS, by preserving upland habitat on -site or currently occupied upland CTS habitat off -site. Further, aquatic habitat would be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic CTS breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat, if feasible. Additionally, a CWA Section 404 permit application has been submitted for the proposed project, which requires consultation with USFWS (Endangered Species Act [ESA] Section 7 consultation) defining the adequate compensatory habitat mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation lands, and/or mitigation credits, as well as avoidance and minimization measures to minimize incidental take of this species. The proposed project would also obtain an Incidental Take Permit from CDFW (California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 et seq.), which would define adequate compensatory mitigation. With implementation of all measures required by the USFWS/United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) through ESA Section 7 consultation, and California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 et seq., the requirements of SM-BIO-19 would be achieved concurrently. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 322 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 68 In addition, as discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project would mitigate unavoidable impacts to CRLF habitat at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS through ESA Section 7 consultation, pursuant to SM-BIO-14 and consistent with the EACCS, including minimizing indirect impacts to CRLF and CRLF habitat by implementing best management practices such as erosion control, fencing, lighting, noise reduction, and invasive species management; providing habitat restoration, enhancement, creation, and preservation; and monitoring and reporting the effectiveness of mitigation and the status of the CRLF population and habitat. With implementation of all measures required by the USFWS/Corps through ESA Section 7 consultation, and consistency with the EACCS, the requirements of SM-BIO-14 would be achieved concurrently. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to CTS and CRLF would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Alameda Whipsnake and Western Pond Turtle The Alameda whipsnake was identified by the CNDDB as occurring within five miles of the project site; however, after an assessment of the site, it was concluded that the site does not provide habitat to support Alameda whipsnake. Due to the distance of the CNDDB occurrence and the abundance of dispersal barriers, Alameda whipsnake is presumed absent from the project site. The CNDDB has listed western pond turtle as occurring within five miles of the project site, with the closest occurrence located 0.75 mile east of the project site. The permanent water located within the intermittent drainage in the northwest corner of the project site provides suitable habitat for western pond turtle; therefore, the western pond turtle has a moderate potential to occur on the project site. Development of the proposed project would result in the loss of habitat for western pond turtles. In addition, grading and other construction activities could result in mortality or harm of individual western pond turtles. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential direct impacts to western pond turtle to a less -than -significant level by requiring pre -construction surveys for western pond turtle and establishment of a buffer around identified breeding sites for western pond turtle. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to western pond turtles would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Longhorn Fairy Shrimp. The vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp were identified by the CNDDB as occurring within five miles of the project site. The location of the vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrence (Occurrence #99; 2000) is located 4.2 miles northeast of the project site within an alkali sink. The location of the longhorn fairy shrimp occurrence (Occurrence #24; 2018), is located 4.8 miles east of the project site. Suitable habitat in the form of seasonal wetlands/ponds occur on the project site; however, after wet and dry season protocol surveys were conducted in 2018 and 2022 with negative findings, these species are presumed absent. A listed branchiopod survey report was prepared in 2022 as a separate document with no listed vernal pool branchiopods observed on the project site. No impacts to 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 323 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 69 special -status invertebrates would occur. Therefore, no mitigation measures, as identified in the EDSP EIRs would apply. For the reasons identified above, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to special -status species, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other natural community The project site consists entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. As previously discussed, five habitat types were identified within the project site during the plant surveys, including seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh, and riparian woodlands. The willows and Fremont cottonwoods that surround the quarry pond within the northern portion of the project site and the intermittent drainage within the northwestern corner of the project site qualify as riparian associated trees as they are growing among several wetland features and are species that are associated with the interface between land and water. These riparian trees would be regulated by CDFW. Implementation of the proposed project would require removal of these trees to accommodate proposed development. In addition, as described further below, the proposed project could also permanently impact jurisdictional waters including seasonal wetlands and other waters present on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through SM-BIO-8, as identified in the 2002 SEIR and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, would reduce potential impacts to sensitive natural communities to a less -than -significant level by requiring Stage 2 development proposals be designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States, detailing the requirements for the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters if avoidance and minimization is infeasible, implementing the Resource Management Plan, and detailing requirements for either a conservation easement or mitigation site if impacts to special -status plants cannot be avoided. As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects of waters of the United States (WOTUS) to the extent feasible, pursuant to SM-BIO-5. Specifically, the size of the proposed grading footprint has been reduced to allow of deed -restricted preservation of approximately 10.4 acres of waters and wetlands, including streams and associated riparian habitat and upland buffers. These avoidance areas include avoidance of the riparian woodland lining the drainage in the northwest corner of the property, along Fallon Road. The proposed project also includes preservation of on -site willow riparian woodland occurring on the northwest corner of the project site and the widening and daylighting of portions of the downstream reaches of the perennial stream along Fallon Road, a portion of which currently flows through closed culvert pipes. To further address impacts to riparian habitat, a creek enhancement and mitigation design plan has been prepared for Jordan Creek as part of a 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 324 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 70 separate and distinct project 14, which is located at the northwest corner of the project site and extends off -site in a northeast direction. Additionally, the proposed project would obtain authorization from the Corps, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and USFWS as applicable. The permitting programs administered by these agencies (including compliance with California Fish and Game Codes 1602 and 2081, the CWA, Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and State and Federal ESAs) would require the proposed project to avoid, minimize and compensate for potential impacts to all aquatic resources and special -status species and their habitats, including CRLF as previously discussed. With implementation of the agency -required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures for the proposed project, the requirements of SM-BIO-5 would be achieved concurrently. With implementation of these mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (c) Substantial adverse effect on wetlands As detailed in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project site in October 2022, the project site contains wetlands and waters that could be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, RWQCB, and the CDFW. As described above, the project site supports four linear drainages that flow from north to south across the central northern portion of the project site. An additional linear drainage flows north to south along the eastern project site boundary. Water from an intermittent drainage in the northwestern corner of the project site enters a culvert, which flows under the project site and ultimately discharges into a roadside ditch adjacent to the project site. The roadside ditch and culvert eventually overflow onto the project site, creating a large emergent wetland. A complex of seasonal wetland depressions occurs within the southern portion of the project site and along the southern boundary. Additional wetlands were observed along the fringe of the quarry pond located in the northeastern corner of the project site. All of these features could be considered jurisdictional waters/wetlands by the Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) due to their hydric soils, dominant hydrophytic vegetation and hydrological conditions. In addition, as described above, riparian woodland surrounds the quarry pond and intermittent drainage in the northern portion of the project site. All of these features would be impacted by the proposed project. The 2002 SEIR identified potentially significant impacts to seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams and included mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less -than -significant level. Consistent with Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-6 and SM-BIO-7, identified in the 2002 SEIR, the proposed project would be required to mitigate impacts to wetlands at a 2:1 ratio through 14 ENGEO Incorporated. 2023. GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek, Dublin, California, Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report. October 11. Revised October 20. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 325 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 71 the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters either on -site (SM-BIO-6) or off -site (SM-BIO-7). As discussed in the CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan, the proposed project would mitigate unavoidable impacts to creeks and wetlands at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (measured by acre), pursuant to SM-BIO-6 and SM-BIO-7 and consistent with the EACCS. EACCS mitigation measures related to wetlands, intermittent streams and other waters are designed to protect and enhance the ecological functions and values of these aquatic resources. Consistent with the EACCS, the proposed project's mitigation would establish performance standards and success criteria. Mitigation of impacts on creeks and wetlands would be achieved through a combination of on -site creation/preservation, in combination with compensatory mitigation on parcels within the same regional watershed and obtaining credits from N3 Ranch mitigation or other agency -approved alternative mitigation bank or turnkey mitigation site. Additionally, the proposed project would obtain authorization from the Corps, RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS as applicable. The permitting programs administered by these agencies (including compliance with California Fish and Game Codes 1602 and 2081, the CWA, Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and State and Federal ESAs) would require the proposed project to compensate for potential impacts to all aquatic resources and are expected to require compensatory mitigation for loss of aquatic resources at a ratio of 2:1 or higher. With implementation of the agency -required compensatory mitigation measures for the proposed project, the requirements of SM-BIO-6 and SM-BIO-7 would be achieved concurrently. With implementation of these mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, which require compensatory mitigation for loss of wetlands, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wetlands, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife or adversely affect nursery sites The majority of the project site consists entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. Much of this grassland is currently dominated by native annual grasses. As described above, the project site supports four linear drainages that flow from north to south across the central northern portion of the project site and an additional linear drainage flows north to south along the eastern project site boundary. An intermittent drainage associated with riparian woodland is located in the northwestern corner of the project site. The intermittent drainage enters a culvert, which flows under the project site and ultimately discharges into a roadside ditch adjacent to the project site. The roadside ditch and culvert eventually overflow onto the project site, creating a large emergent wetland. CRLF have been observed within the project site and just adjacent to the project site within the ditch along Croak Road. The seasonal wetlands and drainages on the project site contain suitable CRLF breeding and dispersal habitat and the multiple ground squirrel burrow complexes provide suitable upland refuge for both species. In addition, CRLF and CTS may 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 326 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 72 disperse across the project site to breeding habitat off -site. CRLF and CTS are present on -site and are likely to continue to utilize the site for breeding, foraging, and dispersal. Development of the proposed project could impact dispersal of the CRLF and CTS across the project site to breeding habitat off -site. To mitigate potential impacts to CTS and CRLF, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 3.7/22.0, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, SM-BIO-11, SM-BIO-12, SM-BIO-13, SM-BIO-14, SM-BIO-15, SM-BIO-18 and SM-BIO-19, as identified in the 2002 SEIR, and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-8 and Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-9, as identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. These mitigation measures require pre -construction surveys for CRLF and CTS, the establishment of habitat buffers, and details measures to be taken if avoidance is infeasible. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to CTS and CRLF would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. In addition, structures present on the project site could support bat maternity roosts and vegetation on or adjacent to the project site could provide nesting habitat for some species of native birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified above would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and bat roosts to a less than significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys, establishment of buffers around active nest/roost sites, and avoidance of these sites during project construction. Overall, with implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wildlife movement or use of wildlife nursery sites, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation Heritage trees and approved street trees are protected under the Dublin Municipal Code, specifically Sections 7.56 (Street Trees) and 5.60 (Heritage Trees). As defined in the Dublin Municipal Code, approved street trees include: 1. Any tree planted within any street right-of-way or adjacent easement, which conforms to the approved streetscape master plan; 2. Any existing tree within the right-of-way or adjacent easement, which conforms to the established species and location in any given area, and which was planted as a required street tree under the provisions of any improvement agreement, or as otherwise approved by the City; or 3. Any tree of the approved species and in an acceptable location, which was or may be planted as a replacement. Heritage trees include any of the following: 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 327 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 73 1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade. 2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; 3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. For private development projects, a permit is required from the City for the removal of any Heritage tree and removal/pruning of any approved street tree. In addition, for any property containing one or more Heritage trees, a plan to protect Heritage trees must be prepared and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit. As described in the Preliminary Arborist Report, 105 trees representing seven species were identified on the project site, 96 trees within the project boundaries and an additional nine trees located along Croak Road near the intersection with Dublin Boulevard. Within the survey area, Fremont cottonwood (31 trees) and red willows (22 trees) were the most common species and represent 50 percent of the trees assessed. Of the 105 trees, three trees have been identified for potential preservation, including two red willow trees and a single Western Sycamore tree. The single Western Sycamore tree, which may qualify as a Heritage tree per the City of Dublin Municipal Code, would be retained as part of the proposed project pursuant to the City's Heritage Ordinance. However, the Preliminary Arborist Report prepared for the project site noted that due to the trunk damage and low health rating of the Western Sycamore tree, the tree will continue to decline and eventual collapse. The remaining 102 trees would be removed to accommodate proposed development. New trees would be planted as part of the proposed project, which would replace any trees to be removed. Compliance with the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance, including retaining the Western Sycamore tree which may qualify as a Heritage tree per the City of Dublin Municipal Code, would ensure potential impacts related to tree removal would be less than significant and the no conflict with a tree preservation ordinance would occur. Therefore, for the reasons described above, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (f) Conflict with adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans The project site is located in Conservation Zone 4 of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). The City of Dublin utilizes the EACCS as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource. However, the EACCS 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. With implementation of mitigation measures identified above, the project would be consistent with the EACCS. The project site is not subject to any other adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 328 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 74 project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. For the reasons described above, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conflicts with adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified biological resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sou rce(s) Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022a. Preliminary Arborist Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May. Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022b. Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. October. Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022c. Special -Status Plant Survey Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. October. Olberding Environmental Inc. 2022d. Listed Large Brachiopod Wet Season Survey 90-Day Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 329 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 75 Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. WRA, Environmental Consultants. 2024. Dublin 580 Fallon East: CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan. February 22. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 330 City of Dublin Cultural Resources Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 76 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Environmental Setting CEQA defines a "historical resource" as a resource which meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); • Listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); • Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or • Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]). The California Register defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Under CEQA, historical resources can include precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic -period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 331 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 77 As described in the cultural resources study15 prepared for the proposed project by Peak and Associates Inc. on May 27, 2022, a record search was conducted through the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on February 23, 2022, to identify previous archaeological site records and cultural resource studies within the project site and vicinity. The NWIC, an affiliate of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), is the official State repository of cultural resources records and reports for Alameda County. The search encompassed the project site and surrounding 0.25-mile radius. One prehistoric period resource, CA-ALA-508/H (P-01-00214) was recorded in the western portion of the project site in 1988. The site area was used as a pasture and corral in the historic era, and a light scatter of historic period artifacts were present. In May 2009, a program of backhoe trenching was conducted in which 20 trenches were excavated within the reported site area. Of the 20 trenches, 18 were entirely sterile. One trench contained historic period glass fragments. One trench yielded five fragments of a sandstone metate (or mealing stone). The materials from the site observed in 1988 were no longer present at the site. It was concluded that the site was a low -density surface site with no significant subsurface cultural deposits. As referenced in the cultural resources study prepared by Peak and Associates Inc., numerous other surveys with negative results have been conducted in the project site radius. A complete list of these surveys is provided as Appendix 2 of the cultural resources study. A request was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to search the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for Native American cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. The NAHC maintains the SLF database and is the official State repository of Native American sacred -site location records in California. Cody Campagne, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded to the SLF search request on April 8, 2022, stating that the results were negative and that there were no known Native American cultural resources in the project site. The letter noted, however, that "the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area." In response to a more recent search request, Cody Campagne, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded on November 3, 2023, stating that the results were negative and that there were no known Native American cultural resources in the project site. A survey of the project site was conducted from March 8 to 10, 2022. The project site has historically been and is currently used for cattle pasture, and includes remnants of corrals, fencing, and debris from removed dwellings and outbuildings. The portion of the project site east of Croak Road contained the remains of a mine on the north side, and associated equipment and debris radiating outward throughout the north half of the parcel. The age of this operation was determined to be modern. At the former house and building sites depicted on the USGS maps, no structures remain, but various household and building materials were present and may be associated with the former buildings. Brick, terracotta pipe fragments, aqua glass fragments, concrete chunks and windows glass were visible on the surface in all the 15 Peak, Melinda A., Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Chen Anderson Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May 27. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 332 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 78 building areas. Old lumber and steel hardware was scattered and piled near one location. Two fire hydrants of unknown age and good condition remain near the locations of the two previous buildings east of Croak Road. Remains of a corral and loading chute, water trough, and associated cattle -tending equipment were identified along the west boundary of the project site. The age of this collection could not be determined due to the wide variety in age of materials and equipment; however, the cultural resources study did not identify the collection as meeting the definition of a historical resource. No other historical or prehistoric resources were encountered. In summary, no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found to be present on the project site. However, archaeological cultural resources could still be encountered during construction at the project site. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the disruption or destruction of identified and unidentified prehistoric resources, and disruption or destruction of identified and unidentified historic resources. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.9/1.0 All locations of prehistoric resources will need a program of mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing to determine the presence or absence of midden deposits associated with the surface indictors of aboriginal presence. MM 3.9/2.0 All locations containing either midden components or concentrations of cultural materials located on the surface will be recorded on State of California site survey forms. The borders of any midden deposits or concentrations of cultural materials (other than single isolated artifact discoveries) will be staked so that accurate location maps can be produced by professional survey teams. MM 3.9/3.0 If it can be demonstrated that these recorded and mapped locations will be impacted in any manner by future construction or indirectly impacted as a result of increased access to the area, a plan of evaluative testing of each resource will have to be devised in order to prepare responsive mitigation measures. Evaluative testing will consist of the collection and analysis of any surface concentrations of cultural materials, and the hand excavation and analysis of the scientific content of any midden components discovered during present or absence testing. MM 3.9/4.0 The City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to develop a protection program for prehistoric sites which contain either a surface or subsurface deposit of cultural materials or information which qualify under Appendix K of CEQA as 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 333 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 79 "significant" and which are located in areas of the project site where development will significantly alter the current conditions of the prehistoric resource. MM 3.9/5.0 The discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during grading and construction will result in the cessation of such activities until the significant and extent of those remains can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist. MM 3.9/6.0 The City of Dublin will require the following series of actions as part of the application process for development in eastern Dublin: site sensitivity determination; detailed research and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist; development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the policies of the EDSP and current CEQA guidelines. MM 3.9/7.0 All properties with historic resources, which may be impacted by future development shall be subjected to in-depth archival research to determine the significance of the resources prior to any alteration. 2002 SEIR Cultural resources were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR determined that although the Fallon Village Project proposed a similar type and density of development analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR, due to changes in the project design and identification of new historic resources not identified in the EDSP EIRs, new impacts to cultural resources, including potential impacts on unknown prehistoric resources on the Fallon Enterprises, Jordan and Chen Properties, potential impacts to the historic Fallon House and at the historic Croak Ranch Homestead could occur. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources on these properties to a less -than -significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures apply to the proposed project: SSM-CUL-3. Prior to approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the Jordan and Chen properties, a detailed cultural resources assessment of combined historic/ prehistoric site at the 4J Ranch site (CA-Ala-508/H) shall be conducted to determine if the site is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. All mitigation measures identified in that study shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan approval conditions. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Historic resources For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the CRHR), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical resources can include 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 334 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 80 precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic -period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. CEQA requires agencies considering projects that are subject to discretionary action to consider the potential impacts on cultural resources that may occur from project implementation (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). As described above, no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found on the project site. However, it cannot be entirely ruled out that archaeological cultural resources could be encountered during construction at the project site. Should archaeological deposits be encountered during project ground disturbance, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). If such resources are encountered, implementation of MM 3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce any potential impacts to archaeological and/or Native American resources to a less -than -significant level, by requiring a site sensitivity determination, detailed research, and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the policies of the EDSP and current CEQA guidelines and cessation of construction activities if unanticipated historic or prehistoric remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, with adherence to MM 3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to historic resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Archaeological resources Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1), "When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource." Archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as "unique archaeological resources" pursuant to California Public Resource Code Section 21083.2. Archaeological deposits identified during project construction (if any) shall be treated by the City —in consultation with a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology —in accordance with MM 3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These measures, which require a site sensitivity determination, detailed research, and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, development of a mitigation plan pursuant to the policies of the EDSP and current CEQA guidelines and cessation of construction activities if unanticipated historic or prehistoric remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities would reduce potential impacts to any archaeological resources discovered during project construction to a less -than - significant level. Therefore, with adherence to MM 3.9/5.0 and MM 3.9/6.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and described above, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to archaeological resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur . (c) Human remains Based on previous archaeological investigation and analysis and summarized above, there is a low potential for the disturbance of archaeological cultural resources or human remains. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 335 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 81 However, in the event that human remains are encountered at any time during project work, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) per PRC Section 5097.98. With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD's recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment. Compliance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 regarding the treatment of human remains, which detail measures to be taken if unanticipated human remains are uncovered during construction of the project, would ensure that potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to human remains, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sou rce(s) Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 336 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 82 Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Chen Anderson Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May 27. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 337 City of Dublin Energy Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 83 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 13. ENERGY. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Environmental Setting The project site is located within Fallon Gateway of the EDSP. Commercial and industrial land within Fallon Gateway, east of Fallon Road, is required to incorporate the following sustainability practices: • Build off the City's Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streets concepts within the private development's circulation system to ensure strong bicycle, pedestrian and transit connections within and between private developments and connections to the City's streets and existing and future transit hubs. • Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Electric vehicle charging stations within each development. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand of single occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles, showers/lockers, bike share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs. • Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric grid management, by incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, battery storage and micro -grids. • Reduce consumption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solid waste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment toward zero -waste goals. • Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-optic communications infrastructure. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 338 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 84 ■ Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streets certified as Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold or greater or similar equivalent. ■ Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold status or above. Electricity Electricity is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources (including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, or nuclear resources) into energy. Electricity is used for a variety of purposes (e.g., lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration, and for operating appliances, computers, electronics, machinery, and public transportation systems).16 In 2022, California consumed approximately 287,826 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 287,826,110,475 kilowatt-hours (kWh).17 Of this total, Alameda County consumed 10,395 GWh or 10,395,384,395 kWh.18 Natural Gas Natural gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are formed when layers of decomposing plant and animal matter are exposed to intense heat and pressure under the surface of the Earth over many years. Natural gas is a combustible mixture of hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas is found in naturally occurring reservoirs in deep underground rock formations. Natural gas is used for a variety of uses (e.g., heating buildings, generating electricity, and powering appliances such as stoves, washing machines and dryers, gas fireplaces, and gas grills).19 In 2022, California consumed approximately 11,711 million therms or 11,710,641,194 therms, while Alameda County consumed approximately 377 million therms or approximately 377,309,788 therms.20 21 Petroleum is also a non-renewable fossil fuel. Petroleum is a thick, flammable, yellow -to -black mixture of gaseous, liquid and solid hydrocarbons that occurs naturally beneath the earth's surface. Petroleum is primarily recovered by oil drilling. It is refined into a large number of consumer products, primarily fuel oil and gasoline. Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline being consumed by light -duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2021, vehicle 16 California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Total System Electric Generation. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2022-total-system- electric-generation (accessed October 2023). 17 California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023). 18 Ibid. 19 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. Natural Gas Explained -Use of Natural Gas. Website: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natural-gas.php (accessed October 2023). 20 California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 339 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 85 trips in Alameda County in 2023 are anticipated to consume 155.9 million gallons of diesel fuel and 553.9 million gallons of gasoline. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared, the Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) did not include energy. Therefore, the Eastern Dublin EIR did not specifically analyze impacts to energy. Because the EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether energy impacts need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Utilities and service systems impacts and mitigation measures, some of which are related to the demand for energy of additional service systems, were identified and found that the demand for utility extensions and consumption of non- renewable natural resources would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.4/46.0 Site Planning, Building Design, and Landscaping. The City shall require project applicants to demonstrate that specific site planning, building design, and landscaping measures have been incorporated into their projects to conserve the use of energy during construction and long-term operation. Such measures might include orientation of lots; buildings and windows; protection of solar access; active and passive solar applications; use of energy efficient materials; and function of landscaping. These measures will be incorporated into an energy conservation plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the City as part of specific development proposals. 2002 SEIR A review of potential utilities impacts, including energy supply, was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional utilities/energy supply impacts would occur beyond those identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. However, the 2002 SEIR identified the following supplemental mitigation measures that would be applicable to the proposed project: SM-UTS-1 Require discretionary City review prior to the installation and use of distributed generators, including emergency generators. SM-UTS-2 Prior to approval of future subdivision maps or Site Development Review applications (as may be applicable) by the City of Dublin, project developers shall submit "will serve" letters from PG&E indicating that adequate electricity and natural gas services are available to serve the proposed development project. Fallon Village SEIR No additional impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 340 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 86 The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impact described above, which includes the project. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Wasteful consumption of energy resources The EDSP EIRs determined that development of the EDSP area would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the consumption of non-renewable natural resources, including energy consumption. Mitigation measures are identified in the EDSP EIRs to minimize this impact but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. Since preparation of the EDSP EIRs, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in Title 24 in the California Code of Regulations have been revised and updated to include more stringent requirements to prevent the unnecessary consumption of energy. Any future development on the project site would be required to comply with these standards. In addition, Chapter 7.94, Green Building, of the City of Dublin Municipal Code encourages sustainable construction in the following categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, materials conservation and resource efficiency and environmental quality. Furthermore, commercial and industrial land within Fallon Gateway, east of Fallon Road, is required to incorporate the sustainability practices, as described above. (b) Conflict with local plan for renewable energy The proposed project does not contain any features that would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and is required to comply with state and local energy regulations, as described above. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) California Energy Commission, 2023. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation- energy/california-gasoline-data-facts-and- statistics#:":text=Gasoline%20is%20the%20most%20used,of%20Tax%20and%20Fee%20 Administration%20 (accessed October 2023). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 341 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 87 California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Total System Electric Generation. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity- data/2022-total-system-electric-generation (accessed October 2023). California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Electricity Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023). California Energy Commission, 2023. Energy Consumption Data Management Service. Gas Consumption by County. Website: www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed October 2023). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. Natural Gas Explained -Use of Natural Gas. Website: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natural-gas.php (accessed October 2023). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 342 City of Dublin Geology and Soils Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 88 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause 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 (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Environmental Setting The following discussion is based on the results of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project (Appendix H). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 343 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 89 The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of Northern California. This province is generally characterized by northwest -trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys, which reflect the dominant northwest structural trend of the bedrock in the region. The hill front along the northern portion of the project site is mapped as underlain by Plio- Pleistocene Livermore Gravels or nonmarine sedimentary units of the Tassajara Formation. Bedrock bedding is shown generally striking northwest and dipping steeply (85 degrees) to the southwest. At the base of slopes crossing the middle of the site, transitional slopes (mid -level terraces) are mapped as Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits and Holocene floodplain deposits further south extending into the valley portion of the site. The Calaveras Fault separates the lowlands of the Dublin Valley from the hill areas to the west. The nearest active fault to the project site is the Mount Diablo Thrust, which is located approximately two miles from the site. This fault is considered capable of a moment magnitude earthquake of 6.7. Other active faults in the vicinity of the project site include the Hayward - Rodgers Creek, San Andreas, and Greenville faults, which are all considered active faults. The project site is not located within a State -designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The project site ranges in elevation from approximately 355 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the south to approximately 576 feet above msl to the north. The southern portion of the project site is relatively level, transitioning to gently sloping hills in the northern portion. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to earthquake ground shaking, alteration of landforms, expansive soils, landslide and slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation. With the exception of the primary effects associated with seismic ground shaking, which was determined to be significant and unavoidable and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project. All other impacts related to geology and soils would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.6/1.0 The primary effects of ground shaking to structures and infrastructures can be reduced to a generally acceptable level below failure/loss of life by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction. Building in accordance with Uniform Building Code and applicable County and City code requirements should reduce the potential for structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of life. However, some structural damage may occur, and it is possible that some residences/structures and infrastructures will not be safe for occupation/use after a large earthquake. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 344 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 90 MM 3.6/2.0 In relatively flat areas which can be developed with minimal grading (the southern portion of the Project site and along Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks): ■ Locate improvements off (setback from) unstable and potentially unstable landforms such as landslides, colluvium filled swales, creek banks, and steep hill slopes. ■ Remove, stabilize or reconstruct potentially unstable landforms, or ■ Employ modern design, including appropriate foundation design and applicable codes and policies, in the construction of improvements that must be located on potentially unstable landforms or in areas underlain by alluvium with shallow groundwater levels which could be locally susceptible to liquefaction. MM 3.6/4.0 Engineered retention structures and surface and subsurface drainage improvement should be uses as appropriate to improve the stability of sidehill fills and potentially unstable materials, particularly colluvium not entirely removed by grading. MM 3.6/5.0 Seismically induced fill settlement can be substantially reduced if fills are properly designed with keyways and subsurface drainage, and are adequately compacted (i.e., minimum 90 percent relative compaction as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method D1557). MM 3.6/6.0 Design roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts. Potentially unstable stock pond embankments should be removed in development areas, unless they are reconstructed to current earthquake design standards. MM 3.6/7.0 Final design of improvements in the Project site should be made in conjunction with a design -level geotechnical investigations and the reports should be submitted to the City of review prior to issuing any permits. These investigations should incorporate stability analysis of both natural slopes that could impact planned improvements, and planned engineered (cut and fill) slopes, assuming saturated conditions and earthquake shaking. Significant slopes should achieve a minimum factor of safety against failure of 1.5 for static conditions (where 1.0 is failure) and 1.2 under design pseudo -static earthquake loading. A displacement analysis should be performed for critical slopes to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures. MM 3.6/14.0 The potential impact of expansive soils and rock with respect to Project improvements can be significantly reduced, or in many cases prevented by the recognition and characterization of site -specific conditions, and the formulation of appropriate design -level geotechnical investigation conducted for each specific proposed project. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 345 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 91 MM 3.6/15.0 The potential for shrink and swell of expansive soils and rock can be reduced by controlling moisture and by treatment through measures listed below. Subsurface drainage alone is not generally effective against the effects of regional wet/drought cycles. Required measures for a specific project should be based on the recommendation of the project geotechnical consultant and approved by the City and include: ■ Moisture conditioning prior to construction; ■ Construction of surface and subsurface drainage to control infiltration after construction; ■ Lime treatment, which can be used to produce non -expansive fill. MM 3.6/16.0 The potential effects of expansive soil can be reduced by appropriate foundation and pavement design, including those design elements listed below. ■ Adjustable foundation systems are not generally effective against the effects of regional wet/drought cycles and are considered undesirable because the systems require periodic maintenance, and their use should be discouraged. Appropriate design criteria should be developed by the project geotechnical consultant and approved by the City: ■ Founding structural foundations below the zone of seasonal moisture change; ■ Use of structurally supported floors; and ■ Removal and replacement with non -expansive fill beneath structure slabs and asphaltic concrete. MM 3.6/27.0 The potential impacts of short-term construction -related erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by timing grading activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and by implementing one or more of the following interim control measures, which are designed to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silt. Required measures for a specific project will be determined by the City and be a requirement of the grading permit. ■ Water bars; ■ Mulch -and -net blankets on exposed slopes; ■ Straw bale dikes; ■ Temporary culverts and swales; ■ Sediment traps; and/or ■ Silt fences. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 346 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 92 MM 3.6/28.0 The potential impacts of long-term erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by the appropriate design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurface drainage of one or more of the following long-term control measures. ■ Required measures for a specific project should be based on the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultants and approved by the City. ■ Construction of sediment catch basins at strategic locations to prevent off site sedimentation from existing and/or potential on site sources; ■ Design and construction of storm sewer systems that incorporate the cumulative effects of project buildout; ■ Creek bank stabilization and repair of existing gullies; ■ Revegetation and continued maintenance of graded slopes; ■ Construction of drainage ditches or cut and fill slopes and/or natural slopes above developed areas; ■ Closed downspout collection systems for individual structures; ■ Design of cut and fill slopes to minimize, as much as possible, natural low velocity sheet flow runoff; and ■ Periodic homeowner/landowner maintenance. 2002 SEIR Geology and soils were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR determined that although the Fallon Village Project proposed a similar type and density of development analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR, due to proposed changes in grading policies and an increase in the proposed urbanized area, new impacts related to geology and soils could occur. Potentially significant impacts related to soil hazards/landslides and increased development were identified. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project: SM GEO-1 (potential soil hazards due to alteration in the extent of Project grading). Prior to construction, design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s) depicting the locations and depths of landslide repairs, keyways and subsurface drains is required. The corrective grading plans shall identify appropriate mitigation for graded slopes. In order to stabilize slopes where unstable geologic materials extend at beyond proposed development area, geotechnical corrective grading may extend beyond the limits of improvements and into open space areas. Grading in open space areas shall be limited to excavations that remove unstable soils and landslide debris and backfilling 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 347 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 93 excavations with compacted, drained engineer fills. To provide stable construction slopes, the back slopes of excavated areas may extend up slope and beyond the limits of mapped slides. The corrective measures used will be typical and configured to conform at natural slope contours with materials and compaction at the approval of a geotechnical engineer. This may vary from original grade within repair envelope due to geotechnical and slope drainage considerations. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Seismic hazards Potential impacts related to seismic hazards are described below. Fault Rupture. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to fault rupture. Ground Shaking. The project site and the entire San Francisco Bay Area are located in a seismically active region subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth's surface resulting from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground -shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. The magnitude of a seismic event is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by seismographs that measure the amplitude of seismic waves. The intensity of an earthquake is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of a seismic event at a given point. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is the most commonly used scale to measure the subjective effects of earthquake intensity. It uses values ranging from I to XII. Mapping has been compiled by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the likely shaking intensities in the Bay Area that would have a 10 percent chance of occurring in any 50-year period. A large earthquake (magnitude 6.7 or greater) on one of the major active faults in the region would generate severe (MMI 8) ground shaking at the project site. The most significant adverse impact associated with strong seismic shaking is potential damage to structures and improvements. The risk of ground shaking impacts is reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in building codes. The City of Dublin has adopted the 2022 CBC (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations), which provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk. The design and construction for the proposed project would be required to conform with, or exceed, current best standards for earthquake resistant construction in accordance with the most recent CBC adopted by the City and with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical practice for seismic design in Northern California, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the site -specific grading and construction techniques identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration to reduce impacts related to seismic ground 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 348 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 94 shaking to a less -than -significant level. With adherence to regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to ground shaking, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Liquefaction. Liquefaction is the transformation of loose, fine-grained sediment to a fluid -like state similar to quicksand. This phenomenon occurs due to strong seismic activity and lessens the soil's ability to support a structural foundation. The primary factors affecting the possibility of liquefaction in soil are: (1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking; (2) soil type and relative density; (3) overburden pressures; and (4) depth to groundwater. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, fine-grained sands and non -plastic silts that are saturated. The California Geological Survey (CGS) has mapped Seismic Hazard Zones that delineate areas susceptible to liquefaction and/or landslides that require proposed new developments in these areas to conduct additional investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of potential ground failure. According to mapping by CGS, portions of the project site are mapped as a liquefaction hazard zone. The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the CBC and the site -specific recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, which includes specifications for site preparation, such as grading and compaction requirements and foundation design criteria. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.6/2.0, MM 3.6/4.0, MM 3.6/5.0, MM 3.6/6.0, and MM 3.6/7.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and described above would reduce potential impacts associated with these hazards to less than significant by requiring minimal grading and avoidance of unstable landforms, use of retention structures to improve slope stability, adequate compaction of fill material, accommodation of estimated settlement, and implementation of site -specific geotechnical recommendations. With adherence to regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to liquefaction, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Landslide. Portions of the project site are also mapped by the CGS as a landslide zone. However, as described in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, no known landslides are located within the project site with the exception of over steepened slopes within the former quarry. Therefore, the landslide risk is considered low. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to landslide, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Erosion/topsoil loss The potential for soil erosion exists during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established or hardscape is installed. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project site. Construction specifications require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any ground disturbance activities as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (GP) for Construction (Order 2009-009- 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 349 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 95 DWQ). The SWPPP would provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the project site during the construction period, including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control that are recognized by the RWQCB. Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, to reduce short- and long-term erosion and sedimentation associated with project construction and operation. Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs would ensure impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (c-d) Soil stability Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink -swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, expansive clay soils were identified near the surface throughout the project site. The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Seismic Zone 4 in the CBC and the site -specific recommendations identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, which include specifications for site preparation, such as compaction requirements and foundation design criteria. Therefore, the project site is not anticipated to become unstable as a result of the proposed project, or potentially result in on- or off -site landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading or settlement. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.6/2.0, MM 3.6/4.0, MM 3.6/5.0, MM 3.6/6.0, and MM 3.6/7.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and described above would reduce potential impacts associated with unstable soils to a less -than - significant level by requiring minimal grading and avoidance of unstable landforms, use of retention structures to improve slope stability, adequate compaction of fill material, accommodation of estimated settlement, and implementation of site -specific geotechnical recommendations. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to soil stability, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (e) Soil capability to support wastewater disposal, including septic The proposed project would connect to the existing wastewater conveyance system. On -site treatment and disposal of wastewater is not proposed for the project; therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts associated with soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (f) Paleontological/unique geological resources No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist within the project site and ground disturbance for the proposed project is not expected to extend deep enough to 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 350 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 96 affect native soils or to impact scientifically important paleontological resources. If such resources are encountered during ground -disturbing activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and listed in Section 5. Cultural Resources, which requires work stoppage in the event of discovery, would reduce any potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less -than -significant level. With implementation of this mitigation measure, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to paleontological resources, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified geology and soils impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soils beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sou rce(s) California Geological Survey. 2019. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed November 2023). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. ENGEO. 2017. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Chen and Anderson Properties, Dublin, California. January 25. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. 2018. Probabilistic Earthquake Shaking Hazard Map. Website: mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed October 2023). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 351 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 97 Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 352 City of Dublin Greenhouse Gas Emissions Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 98 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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? Previous CEQA Documents Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and Fallon Village SEIR, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006 and Senate Bill 32 in 2016. Because the EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gasses and climate change are 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 EDSP EIRs were certified as complete" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)). Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the EDSP 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. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gasses on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 353 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 99 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations. As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Source(s) Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 354 City of Dublin Hazards and Hazardous Materials Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 100 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Environmental Setting The project site consists almost entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. The land uses on nearby properties are largely agricultural, with residential, open space, and commercial. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 355 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study 1 Page 101 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) have been prepared for the three properties that comprise the project site, referred to as the Anderson, EBJ and Chen Parcels. The findings of these Phase I ESAs are summarized as follows: • Anderson Property. This property encompasses the approximately 49 acres of the project site located east of Croak Road. As described in the ESA prepared for this property,21 this portion of the project site consists of a rural residential compound and pastureland used for cattle grazing. Review of historical records indicates that this portion of the project site has consisted of a rural residential compound and pastureland since at least 1940. Several structures were observed within the project site during the site reconnaissance in 2016, including a dilapidated single-family house and five barns/sheds. These structures were subsequently demolished in 2017. Additional site improvements consist of bee boxes, fencing, wooden power poles and two fire hydrants. The site reconnaissance and records review did not find documentation or physical evidence of soil, groundwater or soil gas impairments associated with the use or past use of the portion of the project site. However, given the age of the structures on the project site, it is possible that asbestos -containing materials (ACM) or lead -based paint (LBP) materials are present within the structures. • EBJ Property. This property includes approximately 0.84 acre along the southern boundary of the project site, just west of Croak Road. As described in the ESA prepared for this property,22 this portion of the project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land. Review of historical aerials indicates that this portion of the project site was developed with structures in the late 195Os and remained developed until at least 1968. Based on review of the historical aerials, a service station may have been present from the late 195Os to the late 196Os. Due to lack of readily available information, it is unclear if an underground storage tank(s) remain on the project site and/or if contamination is present. • Chen Property. This property encompasses the approximately 135 acres of the project site located between Fallon Road and Croak Road. As described in the ESA prepared for this property,23 this portion of the project site consists of undeveloped pastureland used for cattle grazing. Review of historical records indicates that this portion of the project site consisted of a rural residential compound from at least 1939 to 1973. Two metal storage tanks were observed during the site reconnaissance conducted for the ESA. The two tanks, which appeared heavily rusted and had several punctures, were located near a debris pile in the northwest portion of this property, near Croak Road. The original contents of the tanks are unknown and it was not clear if the tanks were used as aboveground tanks (ASTs) or underground tanks (USTs). The site reconnaissance and records review did not find 21 ENGEO Incorporated. 2016a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Anderson Property, 3457 Croak Road, Dublin, California. November 8. 22 ENGEO Incorporated. 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, EBJ Parcel -Dublin, Dublin, California. August 10. 23 ENGEO Incorporated. 2016b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Chen Property, Fallon Road — APN 985- 27-2, Dublin, California. November 8. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 356 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 102 documentation or physical evidence of soil, soil gas, or groundwater impairments associated with the use or past use of this portion of the project site. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR did not include a discussion of hazards and hazardous materials as an identified environmental topic area; however, the Eastern Dublin EIR did discuss the potential for hazardous materials releases as part of the analysis of solid waste disposal and fire protection. Mitigation measures identified for solid waste disposal are included in Section 18, Utilities and Service Systems. The Eastern Dublin EIR did identify potentially significant impacts related to wildfire and fire hazards. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following mitigation measures, as modified, would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.4/9.0 Incorporate Doughcrty Rcgional Firc Authority (DRFA)24 Alameda County Fire District recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements for development approval. Require that the following DRFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate: ■ Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new construction. ■ Available capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) fire flow from project fire hydrants on public water mains. For groupings of one -family and small two-family dwellings not exceeding two stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000 gpm. Fire flow requirements for all other buildings will be calculated based on building size, type of construction, and location. ■ A buffer zone along the backs of homes which are contiguous with the wildland area. This buffer zone is to be landscaped with irrigated (wet banding) or equivalent fire -resistive vegetation. ■ Compliance with DRFA minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements. ■ Require residential structures outside the DRFA's established response time and zone to include fire alarm systems and sprinklers. 24 The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) was a Joint Powers Authority between the City of Dublin and the City of San Ramon to provide fire services for these two communities. DRFA had three fire stations - two in Dublin and one in San Ramon. DRFA was dissolved in 1997 with the Alameda County services being contracted to Alameda County Fire District and the small portion of San Ramon served by DRFA being annexed into the San Ramon Valley Fire District. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 357 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 103 2002 SEIR Hazards and hazardous materials were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR determined that because the Fallon Village Project proposed several land uses changes, including converting the former "Future Study Area" land use designation to non-residential land uses, new impacts to related to hazards and hazardous materials could occur. Potentially significant impacts were identified including the potential for hazards from release of hazardous materials into the atmosphere from demolition of existing buildings and remediation of potentially contaminated sites. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project: SM-HAZ-1. Prior to the demolition of any structures identified in the Environmental Site Assessments as potentially containing ACM or LBP, Project developer(s) shall undertake comprehensive asbestos and LBP surveys of those structures and implement appropriate ACM and LBP handling and disposal methods based on those surveys. As recommended in the ENGEO 2005 report, an environmental professional shall be present during demolition and pre -grading activities to inspect for potential environmental contaminants. SM HAZ-2 (potential for soil/groundwater contamination and exposure hazards from existing hazardous materials). As identified in the Environmental Site Assessments for each property, all observed hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and potential containers of those materials shall be removed from the properties by licensed waste contractors prior to building demolition. If no building demolition is required, this removal shall be completed prior to any grading activities on an individual site. The contents of potential hazardous material containers shall be identified and disposed of accordingly, including specific methods to preclude airborne release of materials. All dumped scrap and miscellaneous material and equipment shall be removed from the site prior to any on -site development activities. If recommended in the ESA (i.e., Mandeville, Anderson, and Fallon Enterprises properties), an environmental professional shall view the property during demolition and pre -grading activities to ensure compliance with this measure. SM-HAZ-3a (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). A Phase II ESA shall be conducted for the former gas station site north and west of Croak Road to obtain information with regard to operation, demolition, and removal of the former gasoline service station in order to better assess the likelihood of this use having a detrimental impact to soils and water quality at the EBJ Partners site and adjacent sites. This Assessment shall be completed and approved by the Alameda County Fire Department prior to any demolition or site grading, whichever is first. Additionally, a limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted for the EBJ parcel and 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 358 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 104 adjacent areas of the Anderson and Chen/Tseng properties to better assess whether impacts to soil and shallow groundwater have resulted from the former gas station. SM-HAZ 3f (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). Upon development of each site, all existing wells shall be abandoned under permit from Zone 7 Water Agency and in accordance with all applicable regulations. SM-HAZ 3g (potential for soil/groundwater contamination from subsurface contamination). When, or prior to, the existing structures are demolished, all existing septic systems and associated leach fields shall be pumped out and removed under permit from the Alameda County Health Department. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials The proposed project would demolish the existing structures on the project site and construct residential, general commercial/campus office and park uses. These types of land uses typically do not involve transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. However, the proposed GC/CO uses could include limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses as permitted under the City's GC/CO designation that may involve the use, handling, and storage of commercially available hazardous materials associated with building maintenance, on -site vehicle use, and landscaping. These materials would likely include fuels, paints, flammable liquids, pesticides, and herbicides. However, hazardous materials stored and used at the site would be required to be managed in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal hazardous materials regulations that would reduce risks associated with leakage, explosions, fires, or the escape of harmful gases. The proposed project would generate quantities of hazardous materials similar in nature, type, and volume to the uses anticipated to be used as part of other foreseeable residential and commercial development projects identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Upset/accident The Fallon Village SEIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials associated with historic uses on the project site, including existing structures present on the project site that could contain ACM or LBP and potential contamination associated with the former gas station located at the corner of Croak Road and Collier Canyon Road. However, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-HAZ-1, SM-HAZ-2, SM-HAZ-3a, SM- HAZ-3a, SM-HAZ-3f and SM-HAZ-3g would reduce these impacts to a less -than -significant level through pre -construction environmental investigations for hazardous materials, implementation of appropriate ACM and LBP handling and disposal methods, appropriate removal of septic systems, and appropriate abandonment of existing wells. Since certification of 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 359 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 105 the Fallon Village SEIR, the existing structures on the project site have been removed; therefore, no impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and others to ACM and LBP would occur. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs would ensure that impacts related to the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. During construction, hazardous materials such as fuel, lubricants, paint, sealants, and adhesives would be transported and used at the project site. Management of these materials at the project site would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would require preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce the risk of spills or leaks from reaching the environment. The SWPPP would also include a Spill Response Plan to address minor spills of hazardous materials. Compliance with SWPPP requirements would ensure that potential significant hazards associated with routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during and after construction would be less than significant. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (c) Near school The nearest schools to the project site are Cottonwood Creek K-8 School, which abuts the project to the north, and Kolb Elementary School, which is approximately 0.75 mile to the northwest. As described in Section 8.b, the proposed project would be required to implement Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-HAZ-1, SM-HAZ-2, SM-HAZ-3a, SM-HAZ-3f, and SM-HAZ- 3g, which require pre -construction environmental investigations for hazardous materials, appropriate removal of septic systems, and appropriate abandonment of existing wells. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to release of hazardous materials in proximity to existing schools beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (d) Hazardous materials list Government Code Section 65962.5 states that the California Department of Toxic Substances shall compile and maintain annually a list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action as part of the Health and Safety Code. This list is commonly referred to as the Cortese List. The project would not be located on a RWQCB Leaking Underground Tank Cleanup Site (LUST) or any other Cleanup Program Sites (formerly known as spills, leaks, investigations, and cleanups or SLIC). These two components comprise the State Cortese List of known hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to listing on a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 360 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 106 (e) Proximity to a public airport The Livermore Municipal Airport, a public utility airport operated by the City of Livermore, is located approximately 0.65-mile southeast of the project site. The entire project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) and the southern portion of the site, designated for GC/CO and P/PR uses, is located within the Airport Protection Area (APA). The majority of the project site (except the northwest corner) is located within Airport Safety Zone 6 as designated in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). No restrictions on residential development shall apply to the portions of Zone 6 that extend beyond the boundary of the APA. New residential land use designations, or the intensification of existing residential land uses, are prohibited within the APA. Nonresidential land uses may be allowed within the APA provided they are consistent with the criteria set forth in the ALUCP. The project site is also located within the City's Airport Overlay Zoning District, which is coterminous with the AIA, as established by the Livermore Municipal Airport ALCUP. All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a PD Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are considered Existing Land Uses consistent with the ALUCP and do not require review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), unless changes to the existing land use results in an increase of non -conformity with ALUCP policies or the change would increase the intensity or density of use. As outlined in the project description, the project proposes a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO portions of the project site, which is an increase from the 0.35 FAR allowed in the EDSP and Fallon Village Stage 1 PD. The EDSP and Stage 1 PD allow an FAR of 0.20-0.80 for GC/CO uses. However, the EDSP (EIR) and Fallon Village SEIR evaluated a maximum 0.28 FAR for GC/CO uses. Although the density of the proposed general commercial uses would be greater than previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs, the types of uses (GC/CO) would be the same as those approved in the EDSP EIRs and are consistent with the uses allowed within the APA and outlined in the ALUCP. Further, the mass and height of proposed buildings would not be significantly different than those approved in the EDSP EIRs. No hazardously tall structure or other hazards to aviation are anticipated to be proposed as part of the project or as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan for the GC/CO uses. Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed project would not result in development of an incompatible land use within the ALUCP, would not add structures of a height such that it would create a hazard or obstruction, and would not result in the addition of a characteristic that would create a hazard to air navigation. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to proximity to a public airport, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed in compliance with State requirements and also meets the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the City's local hazard mitigation plan. The Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a uniform hazard mitigation strategy for the Tri-Valley area, addressing a range of hazards including, but not limited to, earthquakes, floods and wildland fire. The City of Dublin 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 361 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 107 also has an adopted Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to assess hazards and mitigate risks prior to a disaster event. The project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses. The proposed project would be designed to provide adequate access to the site for fire/police/emergency medical service personnel in the event of an emergency at the project site. Development of the project site requires the construction of the Central Parkway Extension, Croak Road Extension, and Dublin Boulevard Extension to serve the residential development and general commercial/campus office development. In the event of an emergency on the site, employees and residents could exit the site via the Croak Road Extension, the proposed Central Parkway Extension, and the future Dublin Boulevard Extension. Once off the project site, employees and residents could access 1-580 to exit the City and region. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Because the proposed project would not substantially alter or block the adjacent roadways, the proposed project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (g) Expose people or structures to wildland fires A wildland fire is a fire occurring in a suburban or rural area which contains uncultivated land, timber, range, brush, or grasslands. Wildland fires are primarily a concern in areas where there is a mix of developed and undeveloped lands. The project site is not identified as an area of moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity for the Local Responsibility Area. It is identified as an area of moderate fire hazard severity for the State Responsibility Area, as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the CBC, California Fire Code, and the City's Wildfire Management Plan. In addition, consistent with the City's entitlement process and Mitigation Measure 3.5/9.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR, project plans would be reviewed by the Alameda County Fire Department to ensure that required fire protection elements are incorporated into final building plans, including provision of adequate water supply and pressure, and use of appropriate landscape and building materials. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wildland fires, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hazards and hazardous materials impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 362 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 108 With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sou rce(s) CAL FIRE. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website: egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 13, 2023). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Dublin, City of. 2023. City of Dublin Municipal Code. Chapter 8.35 Airport Overlay Zoning District. ENGEO, 2005. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, East Dublin Properties, Dublin, California. May 27. ENGEO Incorporated. 2016a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Anderson Property, 3457 Croak Road, Dublin, California. November 8. ENGEO Incorporated. 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, EBJ Parcel -Dublin, Dublin, California. August 10. ENGEO Incorporated. 2016b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Chen Property, Fallon Road — APN 985-27-2, Dublin, California. November BESA, 2012. Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 363 City of Dublin Hydrology and Water Quality Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 109 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i). Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site; (ii). Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or offsite; (iii). Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv). Impede or redirect flood flows? X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay. The 660-square-mile Alameda Creek watershed is the largest watershed in the Bay Area, extending from Mount Hamilton north to Mount Diablo, east to the Altamont Hills and west to San Francisco Bay. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 364 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 110 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The northern portion of the site is hilly and transitions to relatively flat areas immediately adjacent to 1-580. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB Basin Plan identifies the project as being within the Livermore Valley groundwater basin (Basin ID 2-10). As defined in Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 Update 2003 (California's Groundwater), the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2-10) extends from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills and from the Livermore Uplands north to the Tassajara Uplands. The Geotechnical Update (ENGEO, 2004) prepared for the EDPO Project indicates that groundwater depths range from 14 to 40 feet. The Water Quality Report prepared for the Dublin Boulevard — North Canyons Parkway Extension Project confirms that groundwater levels are 20 to 25 feet below grade with higher groundwater levels (10 feet below grade) occurring in the area northwest of the existing I-580/Fallon Road interchange. Shallower groundwater may be present along major drainages, in colluvium-filled swales, and associated with existing stock ponds. As described above, the project site supports four linear drainages that flow from north to south across the northern portion of the project site. Water from an intermittent drainage in the northwestern corner of the project site enters a culvert, which flows under the project site and ultimately discharges into a roadside ditch adjacent to the project site. The roadside ditch and culvert eventually overflow onto the project site, creating a large emergent wetland. A complex of ten seasonal wetland depressions occurs within the southern portion of the project site and along the southern boundary. Two small wetlands were also identified in the southeastern corner and along the southwestern boundary of the project site. Three other wetlands were observed along the fringe of the quarry pond located in the northeastern portion of the project site. All of these features are considered jurisdictional waters/wetlands by the Corps and RWQCB due to their hydric soils, dominant hydrophytic vegetation and hydrological conditions. In addition, as described above, riparian woodland surrounds the quarry pond and intermittent drainage in the northern portion of the project site. All of these features would be impacted by the proposed project. Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (06001C0328G and 06001C0329G, dated August 3, 2009), the project site is not located within a 500-year or 100-year flood plain. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to the overdraft of potential flooding, reduced groundwater recharge, and non -point sources of pollution. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.5/44.0 Require drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential or erosion or flooding. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 365 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 111 MM 3.5/45.0 Require channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural vegetation where possible to meet Policy 9.7 above. MM 3.5/46.0 Storm Drainage Master Plan. Require a Master Drainage Plan be prepared for each development application prior to development approval. The plan shall include: ■ Hydrologic studies of entire related upstream watersheds. ■ Phase approach and system modeling. ■ Documentation of existing conditions. ■ Design -level analysis of the impacts of proposed development of the existing creek channels and watershed areas. ■ Detailed analysis of effects of development on water quality of surface runoff. ■ Detailed drainage design plans for each phase of the proposed project. ■ Design features to minimize runoff flows within existing creeks/channels in order to alleviate potential erosion impacts and maintain riparian vegetation. MM 3.5/47.0 Flood Control. Require development in the Planning Area to provide facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project development. These facilities shall include: ■ Retention/detention facilities as appropriate to control peak runoff discharge rates. ■ Energy dissipators at discharge locations to prevent channel erosion, as per Zone 7 guidelines. Energy dissipators should be designed to minimize adverse effects on biological resources and the visual environment; in particular, widespread use of riprap should be avoided. MM 3.5/49.0 Plan facilities and select management practices in the EDSP EIR area that protect and enhance water quality. MM 3.5/50.0 Zone 7 supports ongoing groundwater recharge program from the Central Basin. MM 3.5/51.0 Develop community -based programs to educate local residents and businesses on methods to reduce non -point sources of pollution. Coordinate such programs with current Alameda County programs. Such programs include: ■ Increased availability of liquid recycling centers (i.e., oil, greases, etc.) to reduce potential for dumping into storm drains. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 366 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 112 ■ Programs that educate the public that catch basins and storm drains flow to creeks, to potable groundwater basins, and to the San Francisco Bay, including a potential program to paint labels at each catch basin and storm drain to alert people to these facts. 2002 SEIR Hydrology and water quality were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR identified two potentially significant impacts associated with an increase in impervious surfaces, resulting in increased stormwater runoff, which may not comply with the most recent surface water quality standards and hydromodification standards and, as a result, could add pollutants to nearby bodies of water. Supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project: SM- SD-1 (changed surface water quality standards). The Stage 1 Development Plan shall require that the water quality source control and hydrologic design recommendations of the report prepared by ENGEO, Inc. (February 28, 2005) be implemented for all individual development projects within the Project area. SM- SD-2 (changed surface water quality hydromodification standards). Development within the Project area shall comply with the hydromodification provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program as approved by the RWQCB and administered by the City of Dublin. If no Alameda County Clean Water Program permit has been adopted at the time individual development proposals are approved by the City the applicant may be required to submit hydrology and hydrologic analyses to identify specific increases in storm water runoff into downstream receiving waters. Such reports will be reviewed by both the City of Dublin and Zone 7 Water Agency. Development projects will also be required to pay the then -current Zone 7 Special Drainage Area fee (SDA7-1) in effect at the time of development. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or groundwater quality Construction activities associated with the proposed project would cause disturbance of soil during excavation work, which could adversely impact water quality. Contaminants from construction vehicles and equipment and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters during development. Although surface runoff from the site would likely decrease with the proposed project (due to proposed stormwater treatment measures), runoff from the proposed landscaped areas may contain residual pesticides and nutrients (associated with landscaping) and sediment and trace metals 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 367 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 113 (associated with atmospheric deposition) during operation of the project. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.6/27.0 and MM 3.6/28.0, as described in Section 6, Geology and Soils, would ensure that potential water quality impacts associated with project construction are reduced to a less -than -significant level. The project would be required to comply with these mitigation measures. In addition, because the project would result in the disturbance of greater than one acre of soil, project implementation is required to comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs to reduce the discharge of construction -related stormwater pollutants. A SWPPP must include a detailed description of controls to reduce pollutants and outline maintenance and inspection procedures. Typical sediment and erosion BMPs include protecting storm drain inlets, establishing and maintaining construction exits and perimeter controls to avoid tracking sediment off -site onto adjacent roadways. A SWPPP also defines proper building material staging and storage areas, paint and concrete washout areas, describes proper equipment/vehicle fueling and maintenance practices, measures to control equipment/vehicle washing and allowable non-stormwater discharges, and includes a spill prevention and response plan. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and implementation of mitigation measures MM 3.6/27.0 and MM 3.6/28.0 ensure that the proposed project would result in less -than - significant impacts to water quality during construction. As the site is currently largely undeveloped, the proposed project would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the project site. The increase in impervious surface could result in increased stormwater runoff (both flow rate and volume) from the project site relative to pre -project conditions, which may result in hydromodification impacts (i.e., increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollution generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force). Hydromodification is the alteration of the natural flow of water through a landscape, and often takes the form of creek channel erosion. Hydromodification is one of the leading sources of impairment in streams, lakes, and estuaries. The proposed project is subject to the conditions of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) (Order No. R2-2022-0018 NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). The C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance updated in February 2021 as per the Alameda County Clean Water Program, outlines low impact development (LID) provisions that MRP permit holders can use during planning of development activities to manage and reduce occurrences of stormwater runoff pollutant discharges. These LID methods aim to preserve existing natural landscapes to minimize imperviousness and water quality impacts. The proposed project would be considered a "regulated project" under the MRP. Provision C.3 of the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that would replace more than 5,000 square feet of existing impervious surfaces to include post -construction stormwater control in project designs, including measures for site design, source control, runoff reduction, stormwater treatment, and baseline hydromodification management. Under the C.3 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 368 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 114 requirements, preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) would be required for the project site. The purpose of a SCP is to detail the design elements and implementation measures necessary to meet the post -construction stormwater control requirements of the MRP. In particular, SCPs must include LID design measures, which reduce water quality impacts by preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing imperviousness, and using stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. The proposed project would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan to ensure that stormwater control measures are inspected, maintained, and funded for the life of the project. Compliance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP would ensure that operation -period impacts to water quality would be less than significant. The proposed project would include bioretention facilities and storm drains on each MH Density Residential and GC/CO parcel for stormwater quality control. Proposed bioretention and storm drain facilities would discharge to existing/proposed storm drainpipes. Proposed storm drainage facilities would conform to the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical guidelines and requirements. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which requires preparation of a storm drainage plan for the proposed project, and Mitigation Measure SM-SD- 2, identified in the Fallon Village SEIR, which requires compliance with Alameda County C.3 requirements, would ensure that potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Because the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to water quality violations, wastewater discharges, or water quality degradation, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in impervious surface coverage compared to the existing condition, the proposed project would include the use of LID methods, including stormwater quality basins and storm drains throughout the site that would retain and clean stormwater on -site before discharging it into the municipal stormwater system, consistent with Provision C.3 of the MRP. Further, only the southernmost portion of the project site is located within the Livermore Valley groundwater basin; therefore, the increase in impervious surfaces on the project site would not substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater recharge. The proposed project would connect to the existing water lines within the vicinity of the project site and would not require the use of groundwater. Due to the depth of groundwater and the shallow excavations required for project construction, dewatering is not anticipated during construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease or interfere with groundwater supplies. This impact would be less than significant. As such, no 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 369 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 115 new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to groundwater supplies, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns re: erosion/siltation, re: flooding, or degrade water quality The proposed project would create new landscaped areas and impermeable surfaces, which would alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the C.3 requirements of the MRP, standard City development requirements related to stormwater, and mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Fallon Village SEIR, including Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0, which requires preparation of a flood control plan for the proposed project. As noted in Section 8.b and 9.a, the proposed project would be required to prepare a SWPPP as required by the Construction General Permit and consistent with mitigation measures MM 3.6/27.0 and MM 3.6/28.0, identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, to reduce short- and long-term erosion and sedimentation associated with project construction and operation. Required compliance with applicable regulations, implementation of City policies, and the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, would reduce potential impacts of the project related to changes in drainage patterns to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to drainage patterns, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (d) Flood hazard, seiche, or tsunami As described above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard area mapped by FEMA, or a mapped tsunami inundation area for Alameda County, and no seismically induced seiche waves have ever been documented in the San Francisco Bay area. Additionally, the proposed project would implement various design features to ensure contaminants would be contained. No impact would occur. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to flood hazard, seiche or tsunami, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (e) Water Quality The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan)25 is the master policy document that establishes the water quality objectives and strategies needed to protect designated beneficial water uses in the San Francisco Bay region. The State Water Board and the Regional Water Board enforce compliance with the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan through the issuance of NPDES permits. As noted above, the proposed project would implement various design features to ensure the proposed project would have a less -than - significant impact related to water quality, including multiple bioretention basins and storm drains throughout the site that would retain and clean stormwater on -site before discharging it 25 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. 2017. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin. May 4. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 370 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 116 into the municipal stormwater system, consistent with Provision C.3 of the MRP, with which all projects in the City of Dublin must comply. The southernmost portion of the project site is located within the Livermore Valley groundwater basin. The sustainable Groundwater Management Act designated the Zone 7 Water Agency as the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin No. 2-10) and DWR designated the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin as a medium -priority basin. Zone 7 submitted the 2016 Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan (AGSP) for the Livermore Valley groundwater basin to DWR, which approved the AGSP in 2019. In December 2021, Zone 7 submitted the 2021 Update of the AGSP for review by DWR. As described above, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to water quality, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) California, State of. 201. California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps —Alameda County. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/alameda (accessed September 13, 2023). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Federal Emergency Management Agency. n.d. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (map). Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Dublin%2C%2OCA (accessed September 13, 2023). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 371 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 117 Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 372 City of Dublin Land Use and Planning Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 118 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Environmental Setting The project site consists almost entirely of undeveloped grazing ranchland and open space. The land uses on nearby properties are largely agricultural, with residential , open space, and commercial. The project site has General Plan land use designations of Medium High Density Residential (13.5 acres), and General Commercial/Campus Office (126.3 acres), Parks/Public Recreation - Community Park (7.2 acres), Open Space (44.9 acres), and Public/Semi Public (2.5 acres). The Medium High Density Residential designation allows attached residential units and typically includes detached, zero -lot line, duplex, townhouse, and garden apartment development at a density of 14.1 to 25.0 units per gross residential acre. The General Commercial/Campus Office designation provides flexibility in permitting a range of regional and community -serving retail and office uses. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and office uses are encouraged. An FAR between 0.2 and 0.8 is allowed as specified in the EDSP. The Open Space designation includes areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes great than 30 percent, stream protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands. The Public/Semi Public designation has a maximum FAR of 0.5 and allows for a combination of non -park public facilities (public schools, libraries, city offices buildings, etc.) and semipublic facilities (childcare centers, youth centers, senior centers). The project site is zoned Planned Development (PD) Ordinance No. 32-05 and No.13-08. The intent of the PD zoning district is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. A PD district is established through an adopted Development Plan, which establishes regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the property within the PD district and consists of two stages. The project site is governed by the Stage 1 Development Plan adopted as part of the Fallon Village Project. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 373 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 119 Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified less than significant impacts related to the substantial alteration to existing land use, on -site project land use conflicts, conversion of non -urban lands, and potential conflicts with land uses to the south, east and north. A potentially significant impact was identified related to potential conflicts with land uses to the west, which was determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1/1.0, which requires the City to coordinate with the Army regarding future development proposals in the vicinity of the Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA). 2002 SEIR Land use and planning was addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the expansion of the EDSP planning boundary and the designation of land uses resulting from the Fallon Village project would be consistent with the City's General Plan. No supplemental impacts related to land use and planning were identified. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Physically divide an established community The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community. The project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units, up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses to include limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses on approximately 126.3 acres. The proposed project would also include a 7.2 acre Community Park and 42.6 acre Natural Community Park. Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road. Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. The proposed project would not result in the realignment or closure of any existing roads. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community or adversely affect the continuity of land uses in the vicinity. The proposed project would provide pedestrian connections to adjacent development as well as 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 374 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 120 hiking and walking trails within the proposed Park/Public Recreation lands. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to division of an established community, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation The project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office uses to include limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses. The proposed project would be consistent with the Medium High Density Residential land use designation in that number and type of residential units proposed is consistent with the density allowed under the City of Dublin General Plan, the EDSP, and subsequent planning entitlements. In addition, the proposed residential development would be compatible with the mix and intensity of uses located to the north of the project site, which generally consist of residential and public uses associated with the Jordan Ranch and Francis Ranch communities. As outlined in the project description, the project proposes a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO parcels. The EDSP and PD-1 allow an FAR of 0.20-0.80 for GC/CO uses. However, the EDSP EIR and Fallon Village SEIR evaluated a maximum 0.28 FAR for the GC/CO uses. The EDSP provides discretion to the City Council to approve a higher FAR if the proposed uses meet one or more of the following criteria: ■ Unique project characteristics which result in reduced impacts relative to other uses in the same area (e.g., lower traffic generation); ■ Unique project building requirements (e.g., warehouse uses that have large land coverage requirements but low employment densities); or ■ Extraordinary benefits to the City. The General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use which would enable the applicant to utilize the full 6.5-acre site designated Medium/High Density Residential for residential units. While this would not increase the overall number of units on the site, it would enable them to spread those units across a larger area, resulting in a lower density product type. The Housing Element identifies the Public/Semi-Public portion of the site as an opportunity site that can accommodate 74 lower -income units and is subject to the "No Net Loss" provisions. There is a site at the Transit Center that is already identified as an opportunity site in the Housing Element. This site has a surplus of units that can serve as an opportunity site to accommodate these 74 units. As a condition of approval for the proposed project, the City will require that these 74 units be transferred to another site (e.g., the Transit Center site) that can accommodate them. With this condition of approval, the proposed project would not conflict with the City's Housing Element or State housing law. The conversion of Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation helps address the City's parkland deficit by providing an additional 42.6 +/- acres of Natural Community Parkland to 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 375 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 121 accommodate a future nature park designed for low impact use and maintenance, with hiking and walking trails. As part of the proposed Development Agreement terms, the Applicant would dedicate this land to the City to address the City's parkland deficit of approximately 50 acres. As part of the project entitlements, the City would grant a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I Development Plan amendment to allow for the increased FAR, and Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan for the MH Density Residential uses. The proposed General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment would eliminate the Public/Semi- Public land use designation on the project site and amend the land use designation on 42.6 acres from Open Space to Parks/Public Recreation. With approval of the proposed General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I Development Plan amendment and Planned Development Rezone, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to conformity with land use plans, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. There are no applicable regulatory requirements or mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs that are applicable to land use and planning and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 376 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 122 Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 377 City of Dublin Mineral Resources Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 123 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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 Minerals are any naturally occurring chemical element or compound, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances including, but not limited to, coal, peat and oil-bearing rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas and petroleum. Rock, sand, gravel and earth are also considered minerals by the Department of Conservation when extracted by surface mining operations. Neither the State Geologist nor the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) have classified any areas in the City as containing mineral deposits that are either of Statewide significance or the significance of which requires further evaluation. Previous CEQA Documents None of the EDSP EIRs indicate that significant mineral resource deposits exist on the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to mineral resources were identified. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource. The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state or the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to mineral resources would occur. Conclusion Because the City does not have any mineral areas, there would be no impact, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 378 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 124 Sou rce(s) Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 379 City of Dublin Noise Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 125 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? x x x Environmental Setting Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A -weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A -weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night. As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern. Vibration refers to ground -borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground -borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem where the 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 380 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 126 motion may not be discernible, but there is less adverse reaction without the effects associated with the shaking of a building. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low -frequency rumbling noise, otherwise referred to as ground -borne noise. Typically, sources that have the potential to generate ground -borne noise are likely to produce airborne noise impacts that mask the radiated ground -borne noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings. Typical sources of ground -borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment) and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with ground -borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet of the vibration source, although there are examples of ground -borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 feet. When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. For most projects, it is assumed that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground -borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the project could result in ground -borne vibration that could be perceptible and annoying. To assess existing noise levels, LSA conducted noise monitoring to establish the existing ambient noise environment at the project site. Two long-term (24-hour) noise measurements were conducted at the project site from November 9, 2023, to November 10, 2023. The existing measured noise levels at the project site range from approximately 62.2 dBA CNEL to 63.1 dBA CNEL. Local vehicle traffic on Central Parkway and occasional aircraft noise was reported as the primary noise source. Construction noise on Croak Road also contributed to the noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Noise measurement sheets are provided in Appendix I. Figure 8 shows the long-term noise monitoring locations. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that impacts related to the exposure of existing and proposed development to airport noise would be less than significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also found that impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise, exposure of existing and proposed residences to construction noise, and noise conflicts due to the adjacency of diverse land uses permitted by plan policies supporting mixed -use development would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that impacts associated with exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise and exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Camp Parks RFTA and the County jail would be significant and unavoidable. The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 381 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 127 Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.10/1.0 Require that an acoustical study be submitted with all residential development projects located within the future Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 60 contour. The goal of the acoustical study is to show how the interior noise level will be controlled to a CNEL of 45 dB as required by Title 24, Pat II. The Title 24 goal of CNEL 45 should be applied to single-family housing. MM 3.10/2.0 Require that development projects provide for noise barriers or berms near existing residences to control noise in outdoor use spaces. One possibility is the construction of solid fences around outdoor use areas. The noise control for existing residences should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. MM 3.10/4.0 Developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures to be taken to minimize impacts on existing planning area residents. The program will include a schedule for grading and other major noise - generating activities that will limit these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Hours of construction activities shall be limited in keeping with Dublin ordinances. The Program for construction vehicle access to the site shall minimize construction truck traffic through residential areas. If construction traffic must travel through residential areas, then a mitigation plan should be developed. The Program may include barriers, berms or restrictions on hours. MM 3.10/5.0 In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations should comply with local noise standards relating to construction activities. When construction occurs near residential areas, then it should be limited to normal daytime hours to minimize the impact. Stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. MM 3.10/6.0 Noise management plans shall be prepared and reviewed as part of development application for all mixed -use projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial, office, or other urban non-residential uses. The objective of the noise management plan would be to provide a high -quality acoustic environment for residents and nonresidential tenants/ owners by taking steps to minimize or avoid potential noise problems. The plan would be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. The plan would take into account the concerns of residents, nonresidential tenants/ owners, and maintenance personnel. The plan should be prepared at an early stage of the design process. Ideally, the acoustical consultant should provide input to the architect at a preliminary site plan stage, to make maximum use of detailed site planning to avoid noise conflicts. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 382 City of Dublin 2002 SEIR Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 128 A review of potential impacts related to the exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, exposure of future commercial, office and industrial uses to noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, and exposure of people to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels was conducted as part of the 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR determined that no additional noise impacts would occur beyond those identified at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. However, the 2002 SEIR identified the following supplemental mitigation measures that would be applicable to the proposed project: SM-NOISE-1 Require a noise insulation plan for general commercial (including any proposed office -type uses) and industrial land uses to be submitted for all such development projects located within the future CNEL 70 dBA contour. The plan shall show how interior noise levels would be controlled to acceptable levels. The acceptable level will depend on the type of use as set forth in the noise insulation plan. Interior noise levels could be controlled adequately by using sound -rated windows in windows closest to the streets and the freeway. SM-NOISE-2 Except for local deliveries, restrict heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roadways and truck routes within the Project area and limit the hours of local deliveries to daytime hours as established by the City. gallon Village SEIR No additional impacts were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. However, the Fallon Village SEIR identified the following supplemental mitigation measures that would be applicable to the proposed project: SM-NOISE-1 (aircraft flyovers). All occupants of the residential dwellings within the proposed Project shall receive written notification at the time of sale, rental or lease of the potential for aircraft overflights of the Fallon Village Project area. Written notices shall be approved by the Dublin Community Development Director. SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development). An acoustical study must be prepared for the project. The study shall show how the project will meet an indoor goal of 45 dBA CNEL. In addition, the study must show how noise in outdoor areas will meet the level of a CNEL of 60 dBA (CNEL of 65 dBA at City's discretion). Based on preliminary site development information it is likely that the project can meet the indoor goal with regular double -glazed windows (no special sound rating). A noise barrier may be required if backyards or other primary outdoor use spaces are located adjacent to either Croak Road or Upper Loop Road. SM-NOISE-3 (compatibility of school and neighborhood park with future roadway noise). The design of the elementary school and neighborhood park shall consider noise reduction measures to comply with City exterior noise exposure limits including but not 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 383 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 129 limited to appropriate siting of improvements, use of noise barriers and similar noise reduction techniques as may be needed. SM-NOISE-4 (noise from Upper Loop Road affecting existing residences). Noise from Upper Loop Road is expected to generate a CNEL in excess of 60 dBA. The existing homes along the existing alignment of Fallon Road are currently exposed to an Ldn of about 56 to 59 dBA. It is unlikely but possible that the noise from Upper Loop Road would cause noise levels to increase by more than 6 dBA at these existing homes. However, an evaluation of noise from Upper Loop Road on existing dwellings shall be made and if it is found that the road would increase noise by more than 6 dBA in backyards of those existing homes, then appropriate noise mitigation measures (i.e., roadway alignment or noise barrier) shall be included in the new roadway design Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Generate noise exceeding standards The short-term construction and long-term noise impacts associated with the proposed project are described below. Short -Term Construction Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short-term noise impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below. Table H lists typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction -related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construction of the project is completed. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site, which would incrementally raise noise levels on roadways leading to the project site. Two main categories of trips would be generated by construction activities: (1) worker commute trips; and (2) haul/delivery truck trips. Heavy equipment would not be hauled to/from the project site daily; it would be hauled in at the beginning of construction and hauled out upon completion of construction. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during site preparation and the construction of the proposed project. The proposed project would include phased construction, and would be undertaken in discrete steps, each of which would have its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 384 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 130 sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the project site. Therefore, the noise levels would vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction -related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table H lists the maximum noise levels from the Highway Construction Noise Handbook recommended for noise impact assessments for the loudest anticipated construction that would be used for the project based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one to two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Table H: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) Type of Equipment Acoustical Usage Factor Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA Lmax at 50 ft) Air Compressor 40 80 Backhoe 40 80 Crane 16 85 Dozers 40 85 Excavator 40 85 Forklift 20 85 Generator 50 80 Grader 40 85 Loader 40 80 Paver 50 85 Roller 20 85 Scraper 40 85 Skid Steer Loader 40 80 Tractor 40 84 Trencher 50 82 Water Truck 40 84 Source: Highway Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006). dBA = A -weighted decibel FHWA = Federal Highway Administration ft = foot/feet HP = horsepower Lma„= maximum noise level Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Utilizing the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously: n Leg (composite) = 10 * 1og10i, ) 1010 1 Table I shows the composite noise levels of the two loudest pieces of equipment for each construction phase, at a distance of 50 feet from the construction area. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 385 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 131 Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation: X Leq (at distance X) = Leq (at 50 feet) — 20 * to g10 (50) In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA. Table I: Equipment Noise by Construction Phase Construction Phase Loudest Equipment Composite Noise Level at (dBA Ley at 50 ft) Site Preparation Dozer 88 Tractor Grading Excavator 88 Grader Dozer Scraper Tractor Building Construction Crane 86 Forklift Generator Tractor Welder Paving Paver 86 Paving Equipment Roller Architectural Coating Air Compressor 74 Sources: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023). Construction Noise Handbook (FHWA 2006). dBA = A -weighted decibel FHWA = Federal Highway Administration ft = foot/feet L,,ax = maximum noise level The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include a residence located approximately 200 feet north of Parcel 7 of the project site, measured from the center of the parcel, resulting in short-term noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq at the closest residence. Construction equipment would operate at various locations throughout the project site and construction activities at any one receptor location would occur for a limited duration. While construction -related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construction is completed. As compared to the EDSP EIRs, the proposed project would generate similar noise levels during construction and would implement the previously required mitigation measures, MM 3.10/4.0 and MM 3.10/5.0, to reduce construction related impacts to a less -than -significant level. With 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 386 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 132 implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts compared to those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Long -Term Off -Site Traffic Noise Impacts.The EDSP EIRs identified the sources of major noise affecting the EDSP area to be vehicular traffic stemming from 1-580. The proposed project is estimated to generate an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 22,618. The EDSP EIRs identified a potentially significant impact for future roadway noise as a result of build out of the EDSP, which includes the proposed project. Implementation of mitigation measures within the EDSP EIRs would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Long -Term Off -Site Operation -Related Noise Impacts.DMC Section 8.36.060(C)(3) states that for lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. As such, this analysis evaluates whether noise impacts associated with the long-term operation of the project comply with the 50 dBA Leq standard. Stationary noise generated by the proposed project includes heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, parking lot activities, and truck delivery and truck unloading activities. Parking Lot and Loading Activities.Of the on -site stationary noise sources during operation of the project, noise generated by delivery truck activity would generate the highest maximum noise levels. Typical parking lot activities, such as people conversing or doors slamming, would generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, while delivery truck loading and unloading activities would generate noise levels of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet based on measurements previously conducted by LSA. The proposed commercial uses could include loading activities, which could generate potential noise sources that could affect noise -sensitive receptors in the project site vicinity. However, as discussed above, the closest off -site sensitive receptors to proposed commercial uses includes the residence located approximately 500 feet north of the closest commercial parcel of the project site. At this distance, loading and unloading activities would result in maximum noise levels generate a noise level of 55 dBA Lmax. However, peak noise levels from loading and unloading would be intermittent and when averaged over one hour, these sources would not exceed the City's 50 dBA Leq standard for residential land uses. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 387 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 133 Mechanical Equipment.) n addition, adjacent off -site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary -source noise impacts from HVAC equipment proposed with the project. The project is expected to have HVAC units serving each building, which could operate 24 hours per day. One HVAC unit would generate a noise level of 72 dBA Leq at 3.3 feet, based on manufacturer testing of typical equipment for such uses. At 50 feet, the noise level associated with the operation of the proposed HVAC equipment would be below the City's 50 dBA Leq exterior noise standard for mechanical equipment. Because the proposed HVAC system would be greater than 50 feet from nearby sensitives receptors, as described above, the proposed project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or any other applicable standards. Land Use Compatibility.The EDSP EIRs evaluated the noise compatibility of future development and found that depending on the location of new land uses that may be constructed, future noise levels within some portions of the Project Area could be incompatible with such uses. Therefore, the EDSP EIRs identified mitigation measures MM 3.10/1.0, MM 3.10/3.0, MM 3.10/6.0 and supplemental measures SM-NOISE-1, SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development), SM-NOISE-3 (compatibility of school and neighborhood park with future roadway noise), and SM-NOISE-4 (noise from Upper Loop Road affecting existing residences) to reduce future roadway noise and exposure of proposed residential development to noise. The City sets forth normally acceptable noise level standards for land use compatibility and interior noise exposure of new development. The normally acceptable exterior noise level for residential land uses is up to 60 dBA CNEL. Exterior noise levels of 61 to 70 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable when a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Exterior noise levels between 71 and 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable and noise levels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered clearly unacceptable. The normally acceptable interior noise level for residential land uses is 45 dBA CNEL. The noise environment at the project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise on the roadways surrounding the project site, occasional aircraft noise, and background construction noise. The measured noise levels at the project site range from approximately 62.2 dBA CNEL to 63.1 dBA CNEL. Based on the City's noise and land use compatibility standards, this noise level is considered conditionally acceptable for residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to comply with MM 3.10/6.0, and SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development). MM 3.10/1.0, which requires an acoustical study be submitted with all residential development projects located within the CNEL 60 contours would not apply because the project is outside of the CNEL 60 contours. MM 3.10/6.0 requires preparation of noise management plans for all mixed -use projects in which residential units would be combined with commercial, office, or other urban non- residential uses. SM-NOISE-1, identified in 2002 SEIR, requires a noise insulation plan be 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 388 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 134 prepared for general commercial uses within the future CNEL 70 dBA contour that demonstrates how interior noise levels would be controlled to acceptable levels. SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development) requires an acoustical study be prepared to show how residential development will meet indoor noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL and outdoor noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL. With implementation of MM 3.10/6.0, SM-NOISE-1, and SM-NOISE-2 (future roadway noise affecting proposed residential development), the proposed project would achieve an acceptable interior and exterior noise level in accordance with the land use compatibility guidelines of the Noise Element of the City's General Plan and, therefore, there would be no impact. MM 3.10/3.0, SM-NOISE-3 (compatibility of school and neighborhood park with future roadway noise), and SM-NOISE-4 (noise from Upper Loop Road affecting existing residences) would not be applicable to the proposed residential units based on their location. For the reasons outlined above, with adherence to the aforementioned mitigation measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to noise in excess of established standards, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. (b) Generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noisE Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis assesses the potential for building damage using vibration levels in peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV). The criteria for environmental impacts resulting from ground -borne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single event. The guidelines within the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Manual have been used to determine vibration impacts (refer to Table J, below). Table J: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category PPV (in/sec) Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30 Non -engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018), Table 12-3. FTA = Federal Transit Administration PPV = peak particle velocity in/sec = inches per second The FTA Manual guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.2 in/sec PPV is considered safe for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings and would not result in any construction vibration damage. Therefore, in order to be conservative, the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold has been used when evaluating vibration impacts at the nearest structures to the site. Table K shows the PPV values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. Bulldozers and other heavy -tracked construction equipment (except for vibratory rollers) generate approximately 0.089 in/sec PPV of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 389 City of Dublin Table K: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 135 Equipment Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Vibratory Roller 0.210 Hoe Ram 0.089 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0.003 Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). in/sec = inches per second PPV = peak particle velocity Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residential buildings in the project vicinity). While vibration from construction activity was not assessed in the EDSP EIRs, the proposed project is expected to include the use of heavy equipment similar to a large bulldozer. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off -site buildings and the project disturbance areas because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below. PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)15 The closest structure to the project site for the vibration analysis26 includes the residence located approximately 20 feet north of Parcel 7 of the project site. At this distance, the closest structure would experience vibration levels of approximately 0.124 in/sec PPV with the use of heavy equipment at the property line. Based on this analysis, vibration levels would not exceed any of the established guidelines considered for damage potential. In addition, short-term construction impacts related to ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise would be minimal and temporary in nature and would cease upon construction. Once operational, increased traffic on 1-580 and project area roadways also could increase groundborne vibration caused by the passage of heavy trucks or equipment along nearby streets. As such, implementation of SM-NOISE-2 was identified to reduce groundborne vibration from increased levels of heavy traffic to less than significant by restricting heavy truck traffic to certain roadways/routes within the EDSP area and limiting deliveries to daytime hours. With implementation of SM-NOISE-2, the proposed project would result in less -than - significant operational vibration impacts. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to groundborne vibration, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur. 26 For vibration, the analysis is conducted based on the distance between the perimeter of construction (edge of parcel) to the nearest adjacent structure, which for this project is 20 feet. For construction noise analyses, the distance is measures from the center of the parcel to the nearest surrounding use. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 390 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 136 (c) Excessive noise level near an airport The project site is located approximately 0.65-mile northwest of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Aircraft noise is occasionally audible at the project site; however, no portion of the project site lies within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of this airport nor does any portion of the project site lie within two miles of any other airfield or heliport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and there would be no impact. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to excessive noise near an airport would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant noise impacts beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sources Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Dublin, City of. 2023. City of Dublin Municipal Code. Chapter 5.28 Noise. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. NTIS No. PB2006-109012. August Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Office of Planning and Environment. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. September. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 391 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 137 Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 392 City of Dublin Population and Housing Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 138 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x x Environmental Setting According to the City of Dublin General Plan, in 2010, Dublin's total population was estimated at 46,036 and represented 17 percent of the 269,437 residents in the Tri-Valley area. Data from the 2020 U.S. Census indicates that Dublin's total population has grown to 72,589 and 24,426 housing units. The project site is currently undeveloped. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR Section 3.2 in the Eastern Dublin EIR provides the demographics, housing and employment context for the EDSP. The Eastern Dublin EIR provided a program -level analysis of the development potential envisioned for the EDSP area, including the increased development potential in the City, the Tri-valley area, and the entire San Francisco Bay Area. The Eastern Dublin EIR specifically evaluated new development potential in the EDSP area of up to 17,970 residential units and approximately 12 million square feet of non-residential space, including approximately five million square feet of commercial, four million square feet of office, and two million square feet of industrial park. No impacts related to population or displacement of existing housing were identified. Growth -inducing impacts associated with implementation of the EDSP were evaluated in Section 5.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. As stated in Section 5.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, expansion of the water distribution system infrastructure in anticipation of growth beyond the project site was determined to be growth -inducing. This impact was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. Impacts related to utilities are discussed below in Section 18, Utilities and Service Systems. No mitigation measures were identified related to population and housing. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 393 City of Dublin 2002 SEIR Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 139 The 2002 SEIR identified no supplemental impacts resulting from the EDPO project because population growth associated with the EDPO would not be beyond that anticipated or planned for in the City of Dublin General Plan and the EDSP. Fallon Village SEIR No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in the Fallon Village SEIR. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Population growth The site is identified in the General Plan and the EDSP for MH Density Residential (13.5 acres), and GC/CO (126.3 acres), Parks/Public Recreation -Community Park (7.2 acres), Open Space (44.9 acres), and Public/Semi Public (2.5 acres). The extension of infrastructure onto the project site, including roadways and utilities that would only serve the proposed development, would not contribute to or cause additional growth to occur outside of the City boundaries or elsewhere within the vicinity of the project site, as the project site is surrounded by other properties that have been designated for development in the City's General Plan, EDSP and subsequent planning documents. The proposed project would generate housing -related population growth by developing up to 238 residential dwelling units at the project site, which is consistent with the number of residential units considered and approved as part of the EDSP EIRs. According to the U.S. Census data, between 2016 and 2020, the City had an average of 2.99 persons per household. Based upon an average of 2.99 persons per household, and with up to 238 proposed residential units, the proposed project would increase the City's population by approximately 712 residents. Based on population estimates prepared for Plan Bay Area 2050,27 this increase represents about 1.2 percent of the City's total estimated population in 2015 (56,165). The estimated population generated by the project (712 residents) would represent approximately 0.85 percent of the City's projected 2040 population (83,595). The population growth anticipated between 2010 and 2040 is expected to be 36,915; population associated with the project would represent 1.9 percent of the anticipated growth. The amount of residential development proposed as part of the current project is consistent with the population growth anticipated in the City's General Plan, the EDSP, and the Fallon Village project approvals. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. In addition, the proposed project would result in development of 3,299,670 square feet of GC/CO uses, which is an increase of 1,777,509 square feet from that considered and approved as part of the EDSP EIRs. Per the City's General Plan, the allowed employee density within the GC/CO land use designation is 385 square feet per employee. Therefore, the proposed project 27 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. May. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 394 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 140 could provide employment opportunities for up to 8,571 employees at the project site or 4,617 additional employees than previously approved. According to the U.S. Census approximately 92 percent of Dublin residents worked outside of the City, while eight percent of Dublin residents both live and work within the City limits. Using this estimate, approximately 370 additional employees generated by the proposed project would require housing within the City or would move to the City solely for reasons of employment. These 370 employees could be accommodated by the residential development proposed as part of the project, other residential development nearby (e.g., Francis Ranch, Righetti project, Branaugh project), or residential development being constructed elsewhere in the City. The portions of the project site designated as GC/C0 are intended to provide for a wide variety of regional and community -serving retail and office uses. Because it is anticipated that these uses would provide employment, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The proposed project would not induce substantial unanticipated population growth in the City, and the population increase would fall within the increase identified in the City's General Plan, including the Housing Element, the EDSP, and the Fallon Village Project approvals and, therefore, there would be no impact. No new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to population growth would occur. (b) Housing and resident displacement The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, such that replacement housing would need to be constructed elsewhere, as the site is currently vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact. No new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to housing and resident displacement would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. There are no applicable regulatory requirements or mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs that are applicable to population and housing and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sources Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. May. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 395 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 141 Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. QuickFacts, Dublin city website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dubli ncitycalifornia/PST040221 (accessed November 15, 2023). U.S. Census Bureau. n.d. United States Census Bureau OnTheMap Inflow/Outflow Job Counts in 2021. Website: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. (accessed November 15, 2023). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 396 City of Dublin Public Services Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 142 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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? Le) Other public facilities? Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within the City of Dublin and is served by the following existing public services. Fire Protection Fire suppression, emergency medical and rescue services, and other life safety services are provided to the project area and project site by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). There are three fire stations in Dublin, with the closest to the project site being Fire Station No. 18 at 4800 Fallon Road, approximately 4.4 miles northwest. Back-up service to the project area would be provided by Fire Station 17, located at 6200 Madigan Road in Dublin. Police Protection The Alameda County Sherriff's Office provides contracted police protection to the project area and project site. The Dublin Police Services headquarters are located at 6361 Clark Avenue, west of the project site. Schools The project site is served by the Dublin Unified School District, which operates seven elementary, two middle, one K-8, one comprehensive high school, and one continuation high school, within the City of Dublin. The closest schools to the project site include Fallon Middle School, Jose Maria Amador Elementary School, and Cottonwood Creek K-8 School. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 397 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 143 Parks The City's Public Works Department oversees the maintenance of parks and recreational facilities throughout the City. According to the City's 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City provides approximately 237.04 acres of parkland across 24 parks, including 18 neighborhood parks, 5 community parks, and one nature park. In addition to these park facilities, the City maintains over 26.26 miles of greenways and trails. Table L summarizes the parks within 1 mile of the project site. Table L: Existing Parks in the Vicinity of the Project Site Park Park Type Acres Distance from Project Site Park Amenities Cottonwood Creek Park and School Neighborhood Park 10.08 Directly adjacent to the northern project site boundary. Play equipment and basketball courts. Jordan Ranch Park Neighborhood Park and Square 4.9 0.3 miles north of the project site. Picnic tables/area, barbeque grills, play equipment, restrooms, volleyball courts (grass), walkways/trails, basketball courts, and drinking fountain. Sunrise Park Nature Park 10.75 0.04 miles west of the project site, across Fallon Drive. Nature park/open space. Clover Park Neighborhood Square 2.0 0.2 miles west of the project site. Picnic tables/area, play equipment, restrooms, walkways/trails, drinking fountain, and fitness equipment. Fallon Sports Park Active Community Park 60.1 0.2 miles northwest of the project site. Picnic tables/area, barbeque grills, play equipment, restrooms, soccer fields, softball fields, lighted tennis courts, volleyball courts (sand), walkways/trails, fields for rental, basketball courts, baseball fields, batting cage, bocce ball courts, BMX course, cricket fields, and drinking fountain. Bray Commons Neighborhood Park and Square 4.8 0.5 miles west of the project site. Picnic tables/area, barbeque grills, play equipment, restrooms, volleyball courts (grass), walkways/trails, basketball courts, dog run/dog park, and drinking fountain. Source: City of Dublin. 2022. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 398 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 144 Library Services The Dublin Library is operated by Alameda County Library, with additional funding from the City of Dublin. The Dublin Library is located at 200 Civic Plaza, west of the project site. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to increased demand for police and fire protection services, fire response to outlying areas, exposure to wildlands hazards, increased demand for schools and school overcrowding, increased demand for parks and impacts on existing park and trail facilities. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project: MM 3.4 / I .0 (Policy 8-4). Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise "beats" as needed in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. MM 3.4/2.0 (Action Program 8D). Coordinate with the City Police Department regarding the timing of annexation and proposed development, so that the Department can adequately plan for the necessary expansion of services to the area. MM 3.4/3.0 (Action Program 8E). Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. MM 3.4/5.0 Police Review of Proposed Projects. As a part of the development approval process in Eastern Dublin, the City shall require the Police Department to review and respond to the planned development with respect to: ■ Project design layout relating to visibility, security and safety. ■ Project circulation system and access issues. ■ Project implications for emergency response times. Prior to final approval of non-residential development and improvement plans, the City Police Department shall review the proposed use, layout, design, and other project features for police surveillance/ access, security devices, such as alarms and lighting, visibility, and any other police issues or concerns. MM 3.4/7.0 (Program 8F). Establish appropriate funding mechanisms (e.g., Mello Roos District, developer financing with reimbursement agreements, etc.) to cover up -front costs of capital improvements (i.e., fire stations and related facilities and equipment). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 399 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 145 MM 3.4/9.0 (Program 8H). Incorporate Doughcrty Rcgional Firc Authority (DRFA)28 Alameda County Fire District recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements for development approval. Require that the following DRFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate: ■ Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new construction. ■ Available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire hydrants on public water mains. For groupings of one -family and small two-family dwellings not exceeding two stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000 GPM. Fire flow requirements for all other buildings will be calculated based on building size, type of construction, and location. ■ A buffer zone along the backs of homes, which are contiguous with the wildland area. This buffer zone is to be landscaped with irrigated (wet banding) or equivalent fire -resistive vegetation. ■ Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all nonresidential structures for human use. ■ Compliance with DRFA minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements. ■ Require residential structures outside the DRFA's established response time and zone to include fire alarm systems and sprinklers. MM 3.4/17.0 (Policy 8-3). Ensure that new development in Eastern Dublin, including both residential and non-residential development, fully mitigates the impact of such growth on school facilities. MM 3.4/29.0 (Policy 4-29). Ensure, as part of the approval process, that each new development provides its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors. MM 3.4/31.0 (Action Program 4N). Calculate and assess in -lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit toward parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. 28 The Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) was a Joint Powers Authority between the City of Dublin and the City of San Ramon to provide fire services for these two communities. DRFA had three fire stations - two in Dublin and one in San Ramon. DRFA was dissolved in 1997 with the Alameda County services being contracted to Alameda County Fire District and the small portion of San Ramon served by DRFA being annexed into the San Ramon Valley Fire District. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 400 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 146 2002 SEIR The 2002 SEIR did not identify any potentially significant supplemental impacts associated with fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR did not identify any potentially significant supplemental impacts related to public services. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Fire protection The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the additional residential development proposed as part of the Fallon Village project was assumed as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR and that the amount of additional non-residential development could be accommodated with existing fire personnel and facilities. The proposed project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of GC/CO uses, resulting in approximately 4,617 additional employees than were analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Development of this additional square footage of non-residential use could incrementally increase demand for fire protection services. However, the proposed project is required to adhere to the California Building Code (CBC), the California Fire Code and City of Dublin codes, ordinance and regulations to minimize fire hazards, including fire prevention and suppression measures; fire hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access; and other similar requirements, which would reduce potential fire protection impacts. The additional 4,618 employees resulting from implementation of the proposed project would represent a small, approximately 1 percent, increase in the ACFD service population. In addition, the ACFD has a number of implemented and planned programs and projects related to expanding their capacity to provide fire protection services to their service area, including approval of a $30 million Training Center Project to be located in the City of Dubin, a $90 million Fire Safety Bond (Measure X) to repair, upgrade and replace outdated fire stations in unincorporated communities of Alameda County, and ongoing recruitment strategies as ACFD prepares its Strategic Business Plan for the period 2020-2030. ACFD would continue to provide services to the project site and, with implementation of the above approved and planned expansion projects, would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed project. As such, the demand for fire protection services resulting from the proposed project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing fire protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of fire protection service that would result in physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to fire protection would occur. (b) Police protection The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the addition of 2,878,444 square feet of non-residential land within the project area would result in an increased number of calls for service to the Dublin Police Department, primarily related to traffic violations and burglary/ theft. However, the addition of the non-residential square footage, in and of itself, would not cause the need to 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 401 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 147 construct new or expanded police buildings or other facilities that would result in a supplemental impact. Therefore, no supplemental impacts were identified. The proposed project would subdivide the 192-acre site into 11 parcels to accommodate proposed development of up to 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670 square feet of GC/CO uses, resulting in approximately 4,617 additional employees than were analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The increased demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed project would not be substantial compared to the level of service identified in the EDSP EIRs and would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of police protection service. In addition, the Dublin Police Department has increased their staffing in 2022 as summarized in the 2022 Annual Report and has plans to further increase staffing. As such, the demand for police protection services resulting from the proposed project would not require the construction of new or alteration of existing police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of police protection service that would result in physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to police protection would occur. (c) Schools The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the number of students expected to be generated by dwelling units from the Fallon Village Project is below the number of students based on student generation rates used in the Eastern Dublin EIR analysis; therefore, no supplemental impacts related to student generation, or the number of students were identified. In addition, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that adequate facilities have been planned in the Eastern Dublin area to accommodate students anticipated to be generated by the Fallon Village Project. The number of residential units proposed as part of the current project are consistent with those assumed in the EDSP EIRs and would result in similar, less than significant impacts, on school facilities as described in the EDSP EIRs. As described above, 370 additional employees associated with implementation of the proposed project would reside in the City of Dublin; these additional employees could generate a small number of additional students in the City. Appropriate developer impact fees, as required by State law, would be assessed and paid by the project applicant to offset any impact to school facilities, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.4/17.0 identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to schools would occur. (d) Parks The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the number, location and size of proposed parks would be sufficient to meet City of Dublin standards and would be consistent with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Further, developers within the Fallon Village Project area would be required to pay Public Facility Fees to the City of Dublin for individual developments that do not meet City park dedication standards, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As described above, the number of residential units proposed as part of the current project area is consistent with those assumed in the EDSP EIRs. The increase in 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 402 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 148 non-residential use resulting from the proposed project would not generate significant demand for additional parks or recreation facilities. Further, the proposed project would include the development of a 7.2-acre Community Park and approximately 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park, which would contribute to the City's overall acreage of park and recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a substantial increase in population necessitating either construction of new or alteration of existing park facilities to maintain an adequate level of service. No physical impacts associated with the provision of park services would occur. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to parks would occur. (e) Other public facilities Residents served by the proposed project would likely patronize public facilities such as local library branches operated by the Alameda County Library. However, as described above these residents are within the population assumptions evaluated and approved as part of the EDSP EIRs and the increase in non-residential use resulting from the proposed project would not generate significant demand for other public facilities; therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase the number of library patrons utilizing public facilities, such that new or physically altered facilities would be required. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to other public facilities would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sources Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 403 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 149 Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 404 City of Dublin Recreation Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 150 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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 City of Dublin has a variety of recreational facilities including neighborhood parks, community parks, community facilities, a senior center, open space areas and a series of trail networks. According to the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City of Dublin currently has 24 parks totaling 237.04 acres. The City of Dublin also maintains over 26.26 miles of greenways and trails. The series of routes stretches throughout the City and ranges from recreational trails to shared -use paths. In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) operates the Dublin Hills Regional Park, a large open space park with regional trail connections. The Iron Horse Trail runs along the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, connecting Dublin, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and the City of Pleasanton. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to increased demand for park facilities, fiscal impacts associated with the provision of new park and recreation facilities and impacts on the regional trail system and open space connections. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project: MM 3.4/29.0 (Policy 4-29). Ensure, as part of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors. MM 3.4/31.0 (Action Program 4N). Calculate and assess in -lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit toward parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 405 City of Dublin 2002 SEIR Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 151 Impacts to existing recreation facilities were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were identified. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR evaluated the adequacy of parkland proposed as part of the Fallon Village Project relative to the City's requirements. The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the location and sizes of community and neighborhood parkland proposed as part of the Fallon Village Project was consistent with the current City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan so there would be no significant supplemental impacts with regard to provision of City parks. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration As discussed in Section 14.d, implementation of the proposed project, which would provide 238 residential units, is consistent with the level of residential development evaluated in the EDSP EIRs. The increase in non-residential use resulting from the proposed project would not generate significant demand for additional parks or recreation facilities. Further, the proposed project would include the development of a 7.2-acre community park and approximately 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park, which would contribute to the City's overall acreage of park and recreation facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for park and recreation facilities beyond what was previously analyzed. Similarly, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to increased use of existing recreation facilities would occur. (b) Propose, require new facilities that cause physical effect As outlined in the project description, the proposed project would include dedication of land for a future 7.2-acre Community Park and 42.6 acres for a Natural Community Park. As outlined in the 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Community Park amenities include picnic areas with tables, play equipment, restrooms, and three soccer fields. The proposed Natural Community Park would be designed for low impact use and maintenance, with hiking and walking trails. Improvements associated with these proposed park uses were considered and evaluated as part of the EDSP EIRs and would be developed consistent with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan and in compliance with the requirements for provision of park land outlined in the City's Municipal Code. Potential adverse effects on the environment related to the development of the proposed project have been evaluated in this Initial Study checklist. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to new recreation facilities would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 406 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 152 EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation impacts beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sources Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985. (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 407 City of Dublin Transportation Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 153 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? L) Result in inadequate emergency access? Environmental Setting The following section describes the existing conditions of the study area associated with the proposed project, including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. Roadway Network The roadway network surrounding the project site is described in the following section. Freeways Interstate 580 (1-580) is a generally east -west freeway that runs south of the project site. 1-580 connects the San Francisco Bay Area to the west and the City of Livermore to the east. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the project is 65 miles per hour (mph). Express lanes are present in both directions and are in effect Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Arterials/Collectors/Local Roadways Dublin Boulevard is a six -lane divided east -west roadway that extends west of the project site. Dublin Boulevard is classified in the City's General Plan29 as an arterial between its western limits and Tassajara Road and classified as a collector between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (as well as the proposed extension to North Canyons Parkway). On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. 29 The City of Dublin General Plan. Chapter 5: Land Use and Circulation —Circulation and Scenic Highways Element. Amended 2022. https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7799/Chapter-5-May- 2020?bidld= 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 408 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 154 Dublin Boulevard is proposed to be extended connecting from its current terminus at Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. Central Parkway is a two-lane divided east -west roadway that extends west from Croak Road to Sterling Street. The roadway generally runs through residential land uses and provides access to Cottonwood Creek TK-8 School near the project. Central Parkway is classified as an arterial between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and as a collector for its remaining extent. On -street parking is permitted east of Sunset View Drive near the project and in other segments abutting residential land uses. The posted speed limit is 25 mph in vicinity of the project. Central Parkway would be extended with the project to provide a connection to the transportation network for the residential portion. Croak Road is a north -south roadway that is currently not accessible to the public near the project site. Croak Road connects to Fallon Road near 1-580, Central Parkway at its eastern terminus, and Terracina Drive. The roadway is classified as a local residential roadway between Central Parkway and Positano Parkway. Once the Dublin Boulevard Extension is constructed, Croak Road will connect Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Croak Road would also be extended with the project to provide a connection to the transportation network for the residential portion. Fallon Road/EI Charro Road is a north -south divided roadway that widens from four lanes south of Central Parkway to six lanes to the north; south of 1-580, Fallon Road becomes El Charro Road within the City of Pleasanton. Fallon Road is classified as an arterial roadway near the project site. The roadway primarily serves residential land uses within the City of Dublin, with some retail located near 1-580. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is an east -west roadway located south of 1-580; the roadway is Stoneridge Drive within the City of Pleasanton and Jack London Boulevard within the City of Livermore. Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard is classified as an arterial between Foothill Road and its eastern limits. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway. Class 11 bicycle lanes are present along much of its length. The posted speed limit is 40 mph in the City of Pleasanton (Stoneridge Drive) and increases to 45 mph in the City of Livermore (Jack London Boulevard). Stoneridge Drive is a four to six -lane roadway; Jack London Boulevard varies from two to six lanes. Tassajara Road is a major north -south roadway in Dublin that connects to Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara to the north and the City of Pleasanton to the south. Tassajara Road is classified as an arterial roadway within the City of Dublin; south of 1-580 within the City of Pleasanton, the roadway becomes Santa Rita Road. The roadway varies from two lanes to five lanes and is divided along its southern portion, between Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Ranch Drive. On -street parking is not permitted along this roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 and 40 mph between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive within the study area. Class II bicycle lanes are present, except for on the overpass over 1-580. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 409 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 155 Hacienda Drive is a north -south roadway that provides access to office, residential, and retail land uses such as Hacienda Crossings and Persimmon Place. Hacienda Drive is classified as an arterial and ranges from three lanes to six lanes. On -street parking is not permitted. The posted speed limit is 35 mph within the study area. North Canyons Parkway is an east -west arterial roadway that will connect to the planned Dublin Boulevard Extension at its present western terminus at Doolan Road. The roadway merges with Portola Avenue at Collier Canyon Road. It is a four -lane, divided road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph near the study area. On -street parking is generally prohibited and a bicycle lane is present on both sides of the road. North Canyons Parkway provides access to commercial and office land uses east of the project site, including several hotels and a Costco Wholesale warehouse. Airway Boulevard is a north -south roadway in Livermore that provides access to 1-580 and the Livermore Municipal Airport and connects to North Canyons Parkway at its northern terminus. It is classified as an arterial roadway and is a divided six -lane road north of Kitty Hawk Road/1- 580 EB off -ramp. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Class II bicycle lanes are present, except for on the overpass over 1-580. Transit Facilities The project area is served by Tri-Valley Wheels, which provides fixed -route bus service operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and neighboring communities. Wheels also offers a Dial -A -Ride Paratransit service to eligible patrons in Dublin, available wherever fixed -route service is operating. Three routes directly serve the area surrounding the project — Route 2, Route 30R (Rapid), and Route 501 (School Route). Currently, Route 30R follows Dublin Boulevard to Fallon Road, where it detours to 1-580 before connecting to North Canyons Parkway. With the extension of Dublin Boulevard, this route is likely to use the extension and directly serve the non-residential portions of the project which have access via Dublin Boulevard. The area is also served by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), with the nearest station being Dublin/Pleasanton which is located approximately four miles west of the site. Table M provides details about the bus service that serves the project area. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 410 City of Dublin Table M: Existing Transit Facilities Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 156 Route Route Type Major Destinations Day Times Frequency 2 Fixed Route E. Dublin/Pleasanton BART, Dublin Ranch, Emerald Glen Park, Fallon Middle School Weekdays One AM and one PM trip to serve Fallon Middle School (effective August 2021) 2 per day 30R Rapid Route Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, East Ave., Livermore Transit Center, Portola Park and Ride, Las Positas College, N. Canyons, Dublin Blvd, E. Dublin BART, Dublin Civic Center, W. Dublin BART Weekdays 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM Every 30 minutes Weekends 5:00 M AM to 11:00 Hourly 501 (A, B, and C) School Routey Positano, Fallon Road, Silvera Ranch, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, Dublin HS Weekdays One AM and one PM tripfor each route 2per day Source: wheelsbus.com Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site include: • Fallon Road has Class IIA facilities that begin north of Dublin Boulevard • Dublin Boulevard generally has Class IIA/Class IIB facilities west of Fallon Road. • Central Parkway generally has Class IIA facilities east and west of Fallon Road. However, there is a Class III facility on Central Parkway eastbound between Fallon Road and Sunset View Drive. Central Parkway east of Fallon Road and between Fallon Road and Croak Road also has Class IB sidepaths. • Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard has Class II facilities east and west of El Charro Road. • Airway Boulevard has Class II bicycle facilities south of the 1-580 interchange but there are no facilities between 1-580 and N. Canyons Parkway. • N. Canyons Parkway has Class II facilities east of Airway Boulevard Proposed improvements to the bicycle network in the vicinity of the project site primarily include: • Class I shared use -pathways on the Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 411 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 157 ■ Class II bicycle lanes on Dublin Boulevard Extension, Croak Road, and Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and the I-580 eastbound ramp terminal intersection. ■ Class III facilities are proposed along Croak Road, which is on the north side of I- 580 east of Fallon Road. Sidewalks are generally provided along both sides of the road in the vicinity of the project except at the following locations: ■ Fallon Road has discontinuous sidewalks on one side of the road or another between Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard and Fallon Gateway. North of Fallon Gateway, sidewalks are only provided on the west side of the road until Central Parkway. ■ Airway Boulevard does not contain sidewalks along the west side of the road. Similarly, no sidewalk exists along the south side of North Canyons Parkway between Doolan Road and Airway Boulevard. Sidewalks are also proposed on both sides of the Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road reconstruction when they are built out. Previous CEQA Documents Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to increased traffic associated with implementation of the EDSP, including impacts to freeway, intersection, and roadway operations, transit service extensions, and potential safety hazards for pedestrians and bicycles at street crossings. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce most transportation impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures require construction of new roadways, widening of existing roadways, and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate increased vehicle traffic associated with proposed development in Eastern Dublin. Several traffic impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation. These impacts include impacts to 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (Impact 3.3/B), cumulative freeway impacts (Impact 3.3E), impacts to the Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/1) and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/N). Applicable mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR include: MM 3.3/2.0 (Policy 5-21). Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area to participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. A TSM program would include strategies to reduce the use of single -occupant vehicles such as on -site distribution of transit information and passes, provision of shuttle services to and from BART stations, participation in regional ridesharing services, preferential parking for vanpools and carpools, and flexible or staggered work hours. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 412 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 158 MM 3.3/2.1 The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current study by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. Regional mitigation measures may include implementation of enhanced rail and feeder bus transit services, construction or upgrading of alternative road corridors to relieve demand on the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways. MM 3.3/3.0 The Project shall contribute to the construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard. The auxiliary lanes would provide LOSE operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, and LOS D operations between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard. MM 3.3/4.0 The Project should contribute a proportionate share to planned improvements at the 1-580 /1-680 interchange and the associated mitigation on adjacent local streets. The improvements would provide additional capacity on 1-680 north of I- 580 and would provide LOS D operations. MM 3.3/5.0 Local jurisdictions shall require that future developments participate in regional transportation mitigation programs as determined by the current study by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. MM 3.3/6.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate construction of additional lanes on all approaches at the intersection. The required lanes on the northbound approach on Dougherty Road include two left -turn lanes, three through lanes (one more than existing) and one right -turn lane (one more than existing). The required lanes on the southbound approach on Dougherty Road include two left -turn lanes (one more than existing), three through lanes (one more than existing) and one right -turn lane. The required lanes on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include one left -turn lane, three through -lanes (one more than existing) and one right -turn lane. The required lanes on the westbound approach on Dublin Boulevard include two left -turn lanes, three through -lanes and one right -turn lane. The Project shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS D operations. MM 3.3/7.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to restripe the 1-580 eastbound off -ramp to provide two left -turn lanes and one right - turn lanes (existing lanes are one left -turn lane and two right -turn lanes). The Project shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS C operations. MM 3.3/8.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans to widen the 1-580 westbound off -ramp to provide two left -turn lanes and two right -turn lanes, and to modify the northbound approach to provide three through lanes. The Project shall contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS B operations. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 413 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 159 MM 3.3/9.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the 1-580 eastbound off -ramp to provide two left -turn lanes and two right -turn lanes. These improvements would provide LOS E operations. Further improvement to the level of service could be provided by prohibiting left turns from southbound Santa Rita Road to eastbound Pimlico Drive during peak periods. This left -turn prohibition would require out -of -direction travel for drivers wishing to access Pimlico Drive but would provide level of service D operations. The Project shall be required to contribute a proportionate share of the improvement costs. MM 3.3/ 10.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Livermore to modify the intersection to provide three through -lanes and a right -turn lane eastbound, and two left -turn lanes and two through -lanes westbound. The Project shall contribute proportionate share of the improvement costs. The improvements would provide LOS operations. MM 3.3/ 11.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with the City of Livermore and Caltrans to widen the Airway Boulevard overcrossing of 1-580 by 12 feet to provide adequate storage for northbound left -turns and widen of the off -ramp to provide one left and one left -right lane. The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount toward the cost of these improvements. The improvements would provide LOS D operations. MM 3.3/ 12.0 The City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans to ensure that modifications to the 1-580 interchange at Fallon Road/EI Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements to and from El Charro Road. The Project shall contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. MM 3.3/ 15.2 The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the capital and operating costs of transit service extensions. MM 3.3/ 16.1 Locate pedestrian and bicycle paths so that their crossings of major arterial streets coincide with signalized street intersections, providing a signalized pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the major street. 2002 SEIR The 2002 SEIR identified potentially significant impacts for several intersections within and outside of the EDPO project area, as well as roadway segments in the project area. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce intersection and roadway impacts to a less -than -significant level. In addition, the 2002 SEIR identified cumulative impacts to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Mitigation Measures SM-Traffic-6, SM-Traffic-7, and SM- Traffic-8 were identified to reduce these cumulative impacts; however, the 2002 SEIR determined that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the project: 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 414 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 160 SM-TRAFFIC-1: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the 1-580 eastbound off -ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn lane. SM-TRAFFIC-2: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on -ramp. The westbound loop on -ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound left -turn lane. SM- TRAFFIC-3: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off -ramp through lane to a shared left turn/through lane. Project developers also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a westbound right -turn overlap from Pimlico Drive. SM-TRAFFIC-4: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. SM-TRAFFIC-5: The Project developers shall install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. SM-TRAFFIC-6: Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include 1 left -turn lane, three through lane and two right turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the west bound Dublin Boulevard approach to include three left -turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the northbound Dougherty Road approach to include three left -turn lanes, three through lanes and two right -turn lanes. Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share to configure the southbound Dougherty Road approach to include two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The 1-580 westbound diagonal on -ramp from Dougherty Road shall be widened as necessary to include two single -occupancy vehicle lanes. In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring. SM-TRAFFIC-7: The Project developers shall construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left - turn lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (fora total of three left -turn lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 415 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 161 on a periodic basis, as described below, and will apply appropriate Project conditions based on the results of such monitoring. SM-TRAFFIC-8: In addition to the above additional lane configurations (in Supplemental Mitigation Traffic 7), the Project developers shall pay studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the 1-580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection"). This new Project auxiliary intersection should consist of seven northbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left, 4 through, 1 right), seven southbound Fallon Road lanes (2 left turn, 4 through, 1 right turn), and 4 lanes for the new Project street; in the westbound direction three left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane; and in the eastbound direction, two right -turn lanes, one through and two left turn lanes. lithe studies show that a new Project auxiliary intersection in such location is feasible, the Project developers shall construct such intersection. SM- TRAFFIC-9: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width. The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Project developers also shall be responsible for widening the Fallon Road overcrossing (between the eastbound and westbound 1-580 ramps) from four lanes to six lanes. SM-TRAFFIC-10: The Project developers shall be responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SEIR determined that buildout of the Fallon Village Project area would result in potential impacts to local roadways, impacts to nearby freeways and impacts to transit services. Supplemental impacts were identified for the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, the Santa Rita Road/I-580 EB Ramps intersection, the westbound left turn movement from Central Parkway onto southbound Hacienda Drive. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-TRA-1, SM-TRA-2, and SM-TRA-3 were identified to reduce intersection impacts associated with the Fallon Village Project; however, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that even with mitigation, the impact to the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection would remain significant and unavoidable. The Fallon Village SEIR identified cumulative impacts to freeway segments on 1-580 and 1-680 in the project area and determined that even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and other improvements proposed by the City of Dublin, impacts to nearby freeways would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, the Fallon Village SEIR determined that traffic generated by the proposed project on 1-580 and 1-680 would exceed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency monitoring standards for 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 416 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 162 volumes along these freeways; this impact would also remain significant and unavoidable. The following supplemental mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed project: SM-TRA-1 (Project contribution to impact to Dublin/Dougherty intersection). Project developers shall have the following obligations: a) Advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of right-of-way and construction of the planned improvements at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard. The amount of money advanced to the City shall be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (spread over those projects which are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City from Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the right-of-way and constructing the improvements. The City should provide credit for Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to the developer for any advance of monies made for the improvements planned for the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. b) Pay a pro-rata share of the cost to construct the planned improvements at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The City of Dublin will implement these improvements. SM-TRA-2 (Project contribution to impact to Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps). Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share of the cost to widen the 1-580 eastbound off -ramp approach at Santa Rita Road to include a third eastbound left turn lane. SM-TRA-3 (Project contribution to impact at Central Parkway and Hacienda Drive). Project developers shall contribute a pro-rata share of the cost to modify the westbound approach on Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive to include two left turn lanes, one through and one right turn lane. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Conflict with applicable transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities Potential conflicts with applicable transportation plans standards, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, associated with the proposed project are described below. Trip GenerationThe information provided below is summarized from the Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix I. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition was used to estimate the number of trips the proposed project would generate. The proposed project including 238 multifamily dwelling units, 2,888,400 square feet of advanced manufacturing, a 314-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of retail and 100,000 square feet of office (based on a 0.60 FAR) would generate approximately 22,618 trips per day, as shown in Table N. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 417 City of Dublin Table N: Estimated Trip Generation for 580 Fallon based on 2022 Proposed Project Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 163 Description Size Units ITE Daily Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Multi -Family 238 du 220 1,604 23 73 96 77 45 122 Advanced Manufacturing 2,888.4 ksf 140 13,720 1,493 472 1,965 663 1,745 2,138 Hotel 314 Rooms 310 2,509 81 64 145 95 91 186 Retail 100 ksf 820 3,701 52 32 84 163 177 340 Office 100 ksf 710 1,084 134 18 152 24 120 144 Total 22,618 1,783 659 2,442 1,022 1,908 2,930 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023 DU = Dwelling Unit KSF = Thousand Square Feet The traffic study for the Fallon Village SEIR used the ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition to estimate trip generation for Fallon Village. The four land use categories used and the associated daily trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition include: • Single Family Residential (ITE Code 210 with a daily rate of 9.44 trips per dwelling unit) • Multifamily Residential (ITE Code 220 with a daily rate of 7.32 trips per dwelling unit) • Service (ITE Code 710 with a daily rate of 10.84 trips per thousand square feet) • Retail (ITE Code 820 with a daily rate of 42.94 trips per thousand square feet) Based on these land uses, the estimated daily trip generation for 580 Fallon in the Fallon Village SEIR was 45,550 daily vehicle trips, as shown in Table O. Table 0: Estimated Trip Generation for 580 Fallon Based on Fallon Village SEIR Description Size Units ITE Daily Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Single -Family 70 du 210 670 13 40 53 45 26 71 Multi -Family 130 du 220 874 13 54 67 53 28 81 Retail 876.621 ksf 820 37,771 553 354 907 1,584 1,715 3,299 Service 566.379 ksf 710 6,236 773 105 878 143 701 844 Total 45,550 1,352 553 1,905 1,825 2,470 4,295 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023 Daily Rate from ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition DU = Dwelling Unit KSF = Thousand Square Feet As shown in Tables N and 0, the proposed project would generate 22,932 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the Fallon Village SEIR. Therefore, no new 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 418 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 164 transportation impacts not previously disclosed would be anticipated based on daily trip generation of the for the proposed project. Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts.The proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transit service, bicyclists and bicycle facilities or pedestrians and pedestrian facilities. The proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with any plans or policies for transit usage in the area such as the Dublin Boulevard Extension project, which will have bus pull outs, bus pads, and passenger pads along the roadway. Aside from improvements to project frontages, the project would not construct any addition off -site improvements; therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the construction of transit amenities proposed as part of the Dublin Boulevard Extension or affect plans for transit service in the area. New bicycle facilities are proposed on the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and Croak Road, which would serve the project site and the proposed project does not include any off -site improvements that would affect the construction of these facilities. Croak Road and Dublin Boulevard are proposed to be extended to provide access to the project site. These facilities have planned sidewalks on both sides of the road and the proposed project does not include any off -site improvements that would affect installation of these facilities. Therefore, impacts to bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit service providers resulting from implementation of the proposed project would remain less than significant and the proposed project would not result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to alternative forms of transportation. (b) Conflict with CEQA Section 15064.3 (b) Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of SB 743 in 2013. Previously, CEQA analysis was conducted using a level of service (LOS) measurement that evaluated traffic delay. As specified under SB 743 and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis. The topic of the project's contribution to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Because EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether VMT needs to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not required to be analyzed unless it constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous environmental 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 419 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 165 documents were certified as complete (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163). VMT was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs and could have been analyzed. A change in regulations for impact analysis under CEQA is not a trigger for further environmental review under supplemental review standards. The impact of increased traffic was analyzed using other methods (LOS) at the time of certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not considered new information that requires analysis in a Supplemental EIR or negative declaration. Therefore, no supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road. Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the residential and commercial uses would be provided via Central Parkway, Croak Road and Dublin Boulevard. The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations, as well, as internal roadways within the project site would be required to be in compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to design hazards, beyond what has been analyzed in the EDSP EIRs would occur. (d) Result in inadequate emergency access The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency vehicle access to the residential component of the proposed project would be provided via an EVA connection into the existing Jordan Ranch development at the west and east ends of Pandora Way, respectively, and via an east/west private street off of Croak Road. The commercial components of the proposed project would be accessed via the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension project that will connect Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations would be in compliance with the City's Municipal Code and would be required to meet all emergency access standards. In addition, through Site Development Review, emergency services would review proposed plans to ensure that emergency vehicle access and circulation is adequate. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to emergency access would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 420 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 166 With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sou rce(s) Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Kittelson & Associates. 2023. Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum. December 19. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 421 City of Dublin Tribal Cultural Resources Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 167 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Environmental Setting As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, one prehistoric resource was recorded on the project site in 1988 as the site area was used as a pasture and corral area. However, during a 2009 backhoe trenching program and study, materials observed from the 1988 study were no longer present at the site area. The 2009 study concluded that the site contained no significant subsurface cultural deposits. No other resources are recorded within the project boundaries or within 0.25-mile of the project site. Previous CEQA Documents Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the topic of Tribal Cultural Resources has been added as a new category in the CEQA checklist. However, the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and Fallon Village SEIR, analyzed prehistoric and historic resources and included mitigation measures related to historical and archaeological resources. These measures are listed in Section 5. Cultural Resources of this Initial Study Checklist. Because the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR, and Fallon Village SEIR have been certified, the determination of whether tribal cultural resources need 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). Tribal cultural resources are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 422 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 168 substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)). The topic of the project's potential impacts to tribal cultural resources was not specifically analyzed in the EDSP EIRs; however, the issue of tribal cultural resources was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, established in 1966, requires tribal consultation in all steps of the process when a federal agency project or effort may affect historic properties that are either located on tribal lands, or when any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization attaches religious or cultural significance to the historic property, regardless of the property's location. Further, tribal cultural resources have been considered in the evaluation of impact to historical and archaeological resources since CEQA was enacted. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources The project site is currently undeveloped; therefore, no built historic resources are located on the project site. No archaeological resources were identified on the project site as part of the cultural resources study. Development proposed as part of the current project would be consistent with the development previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce any potential impacts to archaeological and/or Native American resources to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 No archaeological resources were identified on the project site as part of the cultural resources study. Therefore, the City, in its role as lead agency, has determined that the project site is not a resource significant to a California Native American tribe. Development proposed as part of the current project would be consistent with the development previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9/5.0 as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce any potential impacts to archaeological and/or Native American resources to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified tribal cultural, nor result in new significant impacts. No places, objects, or the like with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe have been previously identified and such artifacts are unlikely to be present. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 423 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 169 With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Sou rce(s) Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Peak & Associates, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Chen Anderson Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. May 27. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 424 City of Dublin Utilities and Service Systems Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 170 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Environmental Setting Existing and proposed utility connections are discussed below. Water The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides water service at the project site. DSRSD is responsible for providing both potable and recycled water to the City of Dublin, and the Dougherty Valley area of the City of San Ramon in Contra Costa County. DSRSD's water service area also includes Camp Parks, the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), and Alameda County's Santa Rita Jail. Zone 7 supplies treated potable water to DSRSD. Treated potable water enters DSRSD's distribution system from five metered turnouts from the Zone 7 transmission system. To reduce the demand for potable water, DSRSD promotes water recycling and is a member of the Water Reuse Association. In 1995, DSRSD and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 425 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 171 through a joint powers agreement, formed the DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA). DERWA serves as a wholesaler to deliver recycled water to DSRSD and EBMUD, who in turn deliver the recycled water to their respective service areas. DERWA's San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Project (SRVRWP) provides a backbone distribution system that delivers recycled water to both DSRSD and EBMUD distribution systems. DSRSD's recycled water treatment facilities deliver recycled water to the SRVRWP. Recycled water is produced at DSRSD's wastewater treatment plant at the Recycled Water Treatment Facility (RWTF). The RWTF produces recycled water that meets the California Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse. Wastewater Wastewater collection and treatment services are also provided by DSRSD for the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, Camp Parks, FCI, Santa Rita Jail, and the southern portion of San Ramon. DSRSD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant in Pleasanton that has a capacity of 17 million gallons per day (MGD). The existing wastewater service area encompasses approximately 13,340 acres, or 20.85 square miles. Within the wastewater service area there are currently 207 miles of gravity mains, one permanent lift station, and one temporary lift station. The permanent lift station has 26 feet of force main. Stormwater Drainage and flood control in the Eastern Dublin area is the responsibility of the City of Dublin and Zone 7. Zone 7 is responsible for master planning, overseeing construction coordination and maintaining major storm drain channels and culverts in Eastern Dublin. The City has jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility for local storm drains that discharge to the Zone 7 flood control system. In its current undeveloped condition, runoff from the project area drains mostly via overland flow, which eventually collects just north and east of the Fallon Road/I-580 Interchange where it then flows, via a double box culvert west under Fallon Road. Electricity East Bay Community Energy provides electricity to Dublin over PG&E's distribution system. PG&E provides natural gas service to the San Francisco Bay region and serves the project site. Solid Waste The City of Dublin has a Collection Services Agreement with a private solid waste collection company for residential and commercial garbage collection. The City also has comprehensive recycling and organics collection programs. All single-family residences are provided with three stream collection containers (landfill, recycle, organics) and most commercial and multi -family residences subscribe to three -stream collection service. Beginning January 1, 2022, all service accounts (with a few exceptions) are now required to subscribe to three -stream collection services due to State legislation (SB 1383). Solid waste generated within the City is deposited at the Altamont Landfill which has a total estimated permitted capacity of 62 million cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill is approximately 26 percent full and is estimated to reach capacity in January 2029. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 426 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 172 Previous CEQA Documents eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential significant impacts related to lack of a wastewater collection system, extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new developments, limited treatment plant capacity and wastewater disposal capacity, increased energy use for wastewater treatment and wastewater disposal, potential failure of the export disposal system, pump station noise and odors, storage basin odors and potential failure, recycled water system operations, recycled water storage failure, loss of recycled water system pressure, and secondary impacts from recycled water system operation. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce most wastewater impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts associated with increased energy use for wastewater treatment and disposal were determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.5/1.0 (Program 9P). Connection to Public Sewers. Require that all development in the Specific Plan area be connected to public sewers. Exceptions to this requirement, in particular septic tank systems, will only be allowed upon receipt of written approval from the Alameda County Environmental Health Department and DSRSD. MM 3.5/4.0 (Program 9M). DSRSD Service. Require a "will -serve" letter from DSRSD prior to permit approval for grading. MM 3.5/5.0 (Program 9N). DSRSD Standards. Require that design and construction of all wastewater systems be in accordance with DSRSD standards. The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potential significant impacts related to overdraft of local groundwater resources, increased demand for water, additional treatment plant capacity, lack of a water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth, increase in energy usage through operation of the water distribution system, potential water storage reservoir failure, potential loss of system pressure, and potential pump station noise. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce most water impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts associated with increased energy use for water distribution and population growth were determined to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation. The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed project: MM 3.5/25.0 Encourage all developments in the Specific Plan and Project to connect to the DSRSD water system. MM3.5/26.0 (Program 9A). Water Conservation. Require the following as conditions of project approval in eastern Dublin: ■ Use of water -conserving devices such as low -flow shower heads, faucets, and toilets. 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 427 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 173 ■ Support implementation of the DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan where appropriate. ■ Water efficient irrigation systems within public rights -of -way, median islands, public parks, recreation areas and golf course areas (see Program 9B on Water Recycling). ■ Drought resistant plant palettes within public rights -of -way, median islands, public parks, recreation areas and golf course areas. MM3.5/27.0 (Program 9B). Water Recycling. Require the following as conditions of project approval in eastern Dublin: ■ Implementation of DSRSD and Zone 7 findings and recommendations on uses of recycled water to augment existing water supplies. ■ Work with DSRSD to explore use of recycled water in eastern Dublin through potential construction of a recycled water distribution system. Construction of such a recycled water system will require approval of the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation by DSRSD, Zone 7 and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. MM 3.5/37.0 (Program 9E). DSRSD Standards. Require that design and construction of all water system facility improvements be in accordance with DSRSD standards. MM 3.5/38.0 (Program 9G). DSRSD Service. Require a "will -serve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit approval. Potentially significant impacts related to storm drainage identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR are described in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. 2002 SEIR The 2002 SEIR did not identify any potentially significant supplemental impacts associated with water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, or other utilities/service systems. The 2002 SEIR found that the mitigation measures in place from the Eastern Dublin EIR were adequate and that no new mitigation measures were necessary. Fallon Village SEIR The Fallon Village SIER identified no additional impacts related to water supply, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment capacity, wastewater disposal systems. Two impacts were identified relative to stormwater drainage, including the potential for stormwater runoff to add potential pollutants to nearby water bodies and would fail to comply with current hydromodification standards and surface water quality standards. The following supplemental mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level: SM- SD-1 (changed surface water quality standards). The Stage 1 Development Plan shall require that the water quality source control and hydrologic design 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 428 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 174 recommendations of the report prepared by ENGEO, Inc. (February 28, 2005) be implemented for all individual development projects within the Project area. SM- SD-2 (changed surface water quality hydromodification standards). Development within the Project area shall comply with the hydromodification provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program as approved by the RWQCB and administered by the City of Dublin. If no Alameda County Clean Water Program permit has been adopted at the time individual development proposals are approved by the City the applicant may be required to submit hydrology and hydrologic analyses to identify specific increases in storm water runoff into downstream receiving waters. Such reports will be reviewed by both the City of Dublin and Zone 7 Water Agency. Development projects will also be required to pay the then -current Zone 7 Special Drainage Area fee (SDA7-1) in effect at the time of development. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Require relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities beyond that which was already anticipated in the EDSP EIRs. As outlined in the Project Description, new sanitary sewer lines and water lines would be installed within the project site and would connect to proposed sanitary sewer mains and potable water mains within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and existing lines along Croak Road and Pandora Way. The proposed project would also include connections to proposed electricity and natural gas lines within the future Dublin Boulevard Extension and existing lines along Croak Road and Pandora Way. The project site is currently vacant and covered in non-native grassland and, therefore, contains minimal impervious surfaces. Development of the proposed project would increase the extent of impervious surfaces on the project site. As required by Provision C.3 of the MRP, the proposed project would include stormwater quality basins and storm drains throughout the project site to retain stormwater runoff prior to discharge. Hydromodification vaults would be included on -site to provide flow duration controls for the project. Proposed storm drainage facilities would conform to the Alameda County C.3 Stormwater Technical guidelines and requirements. On -site utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed project —including water, sanitary sewer, drainage, water quality treatment, and dry utilities (e.g., electricity, natural gas, cable) — would be installed within the project site and would connect to the proposed utility lines within adjacent roadways, which have already been planned and addressed in the EDSP EIRs. No new or expanded utility lines or facilities are required off -site, except as needed for the utility connections. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 429 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 175 related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities would occur. (b) Sufficient water supply The Fallon Village SEIR determined that the Fallon Village Project was accounted for in the DSRSD's Final Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin as well as the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and, therefore, there would be sufficient water supply with existing entitlements. Since the adoption of the Fallon Village SEIR, DSRSD has updated the UWMP (in 2020), which accounts for build out of the Eastern Dublin Area, including the project site. The 2020 UWMP determined that there would be adequate water supplies to meet demand through 2040 with existing entitlements. Additionally, consistent with the DSRSD District Code, the project applicant would be required obtain a certificate of capacity rights from DSRSD, prior to issuance of a building permit. The certificate of capacity rights, which is part of the entitlement review process, ensures DSRSD can adequately serve the proposed project. Currently, DSRSD's primary water supply source is purchased potable water from Zone 7, augmented by recycled water produced at DSRSD's RWTF. DSRSD also has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) from the local groundwater basin, pumped on its behalf by Zone 7, the local groundwater basin manager. Imported water from the State Water Project, which is owned and operated by the Department of Water Resources, is by far Zone 7's largest water source, providing approximately 90 percent of the treated water supplied to its customers on an annual average basis. The proposed project would be served by these systems. DSRSD anticipates the same water supply mix to be available through 2040. With the projects and programs implemented by DSRSD and Zone 7, water supplies are projected to meet demands. The proposed project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the City's General Plan, including the EDSP and accounted for in the UWMP. As stated in the UWMP, DSRSD can meet its water demand under multiple dry years with diversified supply and conservation measures. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to water supply would occur. (c) Sufficient wastewater capacity The Fallon Village SEIR determined that potential development associated with the Fallon Village Project, including the proposed project, would be within the assumptions included in DSRSD's 2005 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. Since the adoption of the Fallon Village SEIR, DSRSD has updated the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (in 2017), which accounts for build out of the project site based on acreage and type of land use. The proposed project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the City's General Plan and accounted for in DSRSD's Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the wastewater capacity would occur. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 430 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 176 (d-e) Adequate landfill and compliance Solid waste generated at the project site would be collected by Amador Valley Industries (AVI) and transferred to Altamont Landfill. The 2002 SEIR evaluated the capacity of solid waste service providers and disposal facilities to handle solid waste generated by proposed development in the East Dublin area. The 2002 SEIR determined that the Altamont Landfill had over 25 years of capacity. According to Cal Recycle, Altamont Landfill (01-AA-0009), currently has a maximum permitted capacity of 11,150 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 65,400,000 tons. The landfill continues to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the level of residential and commercial development proposed as part of the project. Disposal of solid waste would be required to comply with all federal state, and local statutes and regulations associated with solid waste. This would include providing receptacles for green waste, recyclables, and garbage. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to solid waste would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) CalRecycle, 2019. Facility/Site Summary Details: Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery (01- AA-0009). Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/7?sitelD=7 (accessed November 15, 2023). Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 431 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 177 Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. West Yost. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Available online at: www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies (accessed June 12, 2022). West Yost. 2019. 2017 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. December. Available online at: www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies (accessed November 15, 2023). West Yost. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Available online at: www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies (accessed November 15, 2023). 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 432 City of Dublin Wildfire Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 178 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 18. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Environmental Setting As described in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not identified as an area of moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity (VHFHS) for the Local Responsibility Area. It is identified as an area of moderate fire hazard severity for the State Responsibility Area, as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Previous CEQA Documents The previous CEQA documents did not specifically analyze impacts for wildfires as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and Fallon Village SEIR were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation measures, some of which relate to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were identified and are discussed in the public services section. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Impair an emergency response plan As described above, the project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone as identified by CAL FIRE. The proposed project would be designed to provide adequate access to 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 433 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 179 the site for fire/police/emergency medical service personnel in the event of an emergency at the project site. Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road. Primary access to the GC/CO parcels would be provided by the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Croak Road north of Dublin Boulevard would be widened and provide additional access to the GC/CO parcels. In the event of an emergency on the site, employees and residents could exit the site via Croak Road, Central Parkway, Fallon Road and the proposed Dublin Boulevard Extension. Employees and residents could access 1-580 via Fallon Road to exit the City of Dublin and the region. The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to impairment of an emergency response plan would occur. (b) Exposure to wildfire As described in Section 6, Geology and Soils, the topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern portion of the site adjacent 1-580 and Fallon Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern portion. Hillslopes range 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level. Prevailing winds are typically from the west between February and November and from the north from November to February in the City. Consistent with City requirements, a Geologic Hazard and Abatement District (GHAD) would be established at Parcel 7. The GHAD would own and maintain improvements and landscape within the wildfire management area, located within the proposed residential lots adjacent to undeveloped open space. These areas would include fire safe plants and materials. Seasonal mowing and trimming maintenance would be performed by the GHAD. GHAD would also maintain the slope area. If GHAD at Parcel 7 is not established, the Homeowners' Association would own and maintain improvements and slope area within the wildfire management area. At Parcel 8, if the project meets the requirements to be GHAD owned/maintained and the project desires a GHAD to be established, consistent with City requirements, the GHAD would own and maintain improvements and landscape within the wildfire management area, located within the proposed residential lots adjacent to undeveloped open space. These areas would include fire safe plants and materials. Seasonal mowing and trimming maintenance would be performed by the GHAD. GHAD would also maintain the slope area. If a GHAD is not established at Parcel 8, the Homeowners' Association would own and maintain improvements and slope area within the wildfire management area. Within Parcel 4 and Parcel 6 (Nature Park parcels), the City would maintain improvements and landscape within wildfire management areas. These areas would include fire safe plants and materials. Seasonal mowing and trimming maintenance would be performed by the City. The City would also maintain the slope area within the Nature Park parcels. The proposed project would not include any design features that would increase the potential for a wildfire. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 434 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 180 project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to wildfire would occur. (c) Require installation or maintenance of infrastructure As discussed above, the project site is located outside of a VHFHS zone as identified by CAL FIRE. All proposed project components, including infrastructure, would be located within the boundaries of the project site and impacts associated with development of the proposed project within the project site have been analyzed herein. Additionally, through Site Development Review, emergency services would review proposed plans to ensure that emergency vehicle access and circulation is adequate. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to installation or maintenance of infrastructure would occur. (d) Exposure to flooding or landslides The topography of the project site consists of nearly level ground along the southern portion of the site adjacent to 1-580 and Fallon Road, with rolling hills occurring along the northern portion. Hillslopes range 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level. As part of the proposed project, the project site would be graded to flatten the site, where necessary, to allow for intended future users. Additionally, perimeter retaining walls would be installed, where needed, to conform with the existing and proposed elevations surrounding the site. Further, as discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to implement erosion control measures during and post -construction. The proposed stormwater quality basins would limit the release of stormwater from the site; therefore, the project site would not expose people to flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability or drainage changes. Therefore, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to flooding or landslides would occur. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in the EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to wildfires beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Source(s) CAL FIRE. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website: egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed June 20, 2022). 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 435 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 181 Dublin, City of. 2022. City of Dublin General Plan, Adopted February 11, 1985 (Amended as of February 15, 2022). Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. Haag, Jerry. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Wallace Roberts & Todd. 2016. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. January 7, 1994 (Updated September 20, 2016). Wallace Roberts & Todd. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 91103064. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December 7. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 436 City of Dublin Mandatory Findings of Significance Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 182 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 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) Degrade quality of environment, reduce habitat, cause population to drop below self- sustaining levels, reduce endangered animals or plants, or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for reasons discussed in the Biological Resources section, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project with compliance with regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures, would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 437 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Page 183 b) Cumulative Impacts 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 EDSP EIRs. The EDSP EIRs considered the project's cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build -out of the EDSP. Implementation of the proposed project, with compliance with regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. c) Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would allow for residential, general commercial/campus office and park uses. These uses or activities would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 580Fallon_FinalDraftl5.docx (4/8/24) 438 In• _1l c1YN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1�-2LANE 2 LANE -. Project Vicinity ALAMEDA COUNTY (X_S: A R I T A Santa Rita• Rehabshtali n Centel Annex _ 'r--- `�s man• Inman Schi t.s7 -4± J� i 3 • S+— Wat�5 ireermore Alum LSA 0 1000 2000 FEET () Project Location SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - Livermore (1980), CA FIGURE 1 Dublin 580 Fallon Project Location J:\DUB2101.04\GIS\Pro\Dublin 580 Fallon\Dublin 580 Fallon.aprx (7/12/2023) 439 .. fi�'�' �+ ..' �p '1R�� _• %., ? `' . �. -ram ,,... c. , i rerq if. - oi H" a 'x++rc JORDAN RANCH aea"�i 4 •r% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1014. lotto r -- KOLB ELEMENTARY � SCHOOL ,,L,. . ,r.._ 4 '.0 IRONGATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FALLON GATEWAY SHOPPING CENTER 580) 41-[ r:: r JORDAN RANCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ARROYO MOCHO FRANCIS RANCH DEVELOPMENT RIGHETTI PROPERTY LSA 500 1000 FEET SOURCE: Google Earth, 3/11/2022 FIGURE 2 Project Site Boundary Dublin Fallon 580 Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses I:\DUB2101.04\G\AerialProjectSiteLU.ai (7/18/2023) 440 Cr LU CC D ( - 7 LT_ Dublin Fallon 580 1 Proposal Parcel Layout SOURCE: Mackay & Somps I:\ DUB2101.04\ G \PropParcelLayoutai (3/12/2024) 441 cc A%ag51 Pi5V.• I 7-50 i ifa 03 ;L'.. o]ugfllxdw lmhm awl/crow wllx " !;'f!cted Ieni N o+ce the iinei'gcbi[ri! i Y s a 8 gEl g .sat s Dublin Fallon 580 i L Existing and Proposed Land Use SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & Somps I:\DUB2101.04\G\ExistPropLandUse.ai (3/12/2024) 442 w cc C7 Dublin Fallon 580 F Residential Site Plan SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & Somps 0 '-I f0 a w To cc co 0 N 0 443 LD w D L rfl CO J Dublin Fallon 580 1 Conceptual Circulation Plan SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & Somps I:\DUB2101.04\G\ConceptCirculationPlan.ai (3/12/2024) 444 N J Dublin Fallon 580 I L Preliminary Utility Plan SOURCES: KTGY; Mackay & Somps N 0 N N '-I ro a c co 0 N 0 0 445 co w cC D LL Project Site Boundary V) J Long-term Noise Monitoring Location 0 0 0 0 u, 0 Fallon 580 Project 1 H LLI LLI LL Noise Monitoring Locations SOURCE: Google Earth 2023 I:\DUB2101.04\G\Noise_Locs.ai (11/15/2023) 446 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix A CaIEEMod Output Sheets 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 447 Construction Custom on 580 - Phase Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated 3.2. Site Preparation (2024) 3.3. Finishing/Landscaping (2026) - Unmitigated 3.4. Finishing/Landscaping (2026) - Mitigated 3.5. Rough Grading (2024) - Unmitigated 448 3.6. Rough Grading (2024) - Mitigated 3.7. Fine Grading (2024) - Unmitigated 3.8. Fine Grading (2024) - Mitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated 3.10. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.12. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated 3.13. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.14. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated 3.15. Asphalt Paving (2026) - Unmitigated 3.16. Asphalt Paving (2026) - Mitigated 3.17. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated 3.18. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated 3.19. Utility Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated 3.20. Utility Trenching (2024) - Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 449 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated a) co 0) E 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated a) 0) 2 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 450 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 8. User Changes to Default Data 451 Information 0 E t .� . 0 LI L LL a U U co .'^ CO r a) To a) iL co 0 Dublin Fallon 580 - Phase 1 Construction Project Name O U N N j O W O 4 I a- 00 o Construction Start Date a) Land Use Scale Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) 37.70601841885312,-121.84634425123701 Bay Area AQMD San Francisco Bay Area i C C o w v) C O Nu_ o O ❑ . Q 0 J C.) U Q H W Pacific Gas & Electric Company Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric 2022.1.1.20 1.2. Land Use Types C 0 Q 0 0 a) CS y CO m m Q 0 0 CO C J :ui •in. rea Q.L` a) U O J c 0 N in rmu . pa O M O O O (0 0 co M O O M O) T.) 0 452 a) N 0 U N- N- M M CO CO Ln Ln Ln LC) MCO CO M L 6 L6 I I 0 0 0 O O CO LO O CO- 0 0 LC) O o ri a Q) N V) 0 0 0 0 N N (6 O _c _1u) u) 0) < a) c O 45 (Li _— ca 0 co 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector YA[*MlI ItlF 0 a) co Use Advanced Engine Tiers Lc? U Construction 2. Emissions Summary 0 N Z H N 0 U N 0 U m H Ln N 2 0 0 Ln N 2 w In 2 a_ U) o o 0 1 CO I 4 • M 2 1 00 CO o 0 1 00 00 I I N N N N I O O CO CO N N O O h I� Lr) LC) CO CO 00 CO Ln Ln I 145 LI) I I N N- Lfl CO CO CO LC) LC) 0 0 O co Lrj LLj I I I I I I I I LO Ln O O M M 1 1 N O o O 7 O O 6) N N Q) L) 0 O O 0 0_ I N- I I 0 M 1 1 a CIII To w o_ Q C 2 0 o v, 0 M c I o rn 1 o 0) I 0 ca W L L. O 4- Q L N LLi Ln LC) L() o E 0 w I 0 0 I 0 0 I I U "- o ° I co N I 1 M M I I E co W x CS) o v 0 0 CA 71: CD C = Z 1 M CO 0.) 1" v a) I O i-, I' U c = co 0 L. h M I� c VI O Q' co co OV 0 CO I 0 � a U ca �, a) _ a) _ a) . CDL E ▪ " 453 N U 0 In C 2 o o CK • 0> 7 D 2 o Cl.) ▪ > 0 O O M CO a) N 0 0 CCO O CO M CO CON CO CO CO CO I, Ln N 4 I Lf) N N I CO V CO O N. OD co 0o o O O I I O O 1 O CO 6) 6) O CO I I C.0 CO O CO O O 6) O 0 O 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO O O M O 0 O M O O 0) LO LC) 0 0 N N O O o O O I 1 OV OV I 0 0 0 0 I N N I O CO 6) h L0 v 0 I LLj LC) N E c a U (O .-. X c l) c LO 00 0 0 CO N O co N 0 O O N 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T E cTs O w X o 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N CO CO LC) CO N N O O O O O I O O O I O O 0 LC) N LO CO 6) O) 0 h CO N CO LC N 1. N N 1 °) I— (0 O 6) M f� N LL) N V LC) N LC) I� O I— CO N CO h N- 1 N N Ln N O 61 I I I I I I I I I I co 4 O O 1 N O O 1 O O L0 I— — N N- r- 6) LO CO O O 1 O O 1 O O O O O I CO O O CO CO N O O 00 O O CO CT) N I V O O I 0 O CO CO 6) CO CO 0 0 I� O O 1 M O O 1 O O N C) CO 7r 6) Cr) 6) 6) (.0 V CO (O N V O O 1 — O O 1 O 0 O O O I O O O 1 O O LL) LC) CO CO LO N M 0")N 6) CO I.-- O h 6) O CO V 4 M M LO O N 1 N LNn O O 1 O O 0 O CO X 7r L() CO [2 >, LO 454 N N N .� c LO N N N a) .- N N O O O O j 2 O O O Q D O O M w 0 OM CO CO N M N 0 I� O) CO tC) O) N CO ' O 4 I LS) N N-COI N O O 0 0 _ O _ O 0 i O O O O 1 v O v CO O O O O O O O O co co O N () N CO 6) CO CO N- g O N C N M - - O N- O O O O O O O O _ O O O O O O O V O) O CO CO - O O O O O O O CO V CO O N N O O O O O co 00 4 O O O O O O O ON O 0')O O O O O LO LC) 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O v v v O f� O co N N O CO N O co up rn co co co 4 O) O N O O O 6) N • O O O O O O To co 2 co CO C O < 0 0 N0 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 0 N Z H N 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m H N 0 0 O N 2 0 w N 0 1- O 2 0 0 O w 0 N 0 0 0 x 0 Z C9 0 O O N- O O O O O O N CO CO LO CO M N N O 0 O O O O - 1 O O - O O O O I•••-. O O O 0) O N 4 I O O 0) CO CO h N 1 O N co O O _ O O 1 V O O N O 1� O I— co N CO - O CO CO CO r- N N 0) O N N '— CO I ON O N O o N- CO CO N O N N N CO x- O M CO COI o CO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO CO N CO CO 0) O O O O O O I O O - I — O - O O O O I O O O h N- N N- 1 6) O N 6) M O O I — O O O O O I O O O O O - O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 V O - co co O) co co co co 0) 6) co co co co co O N O N O O O M O O O O I O O - CO O 0) 00 00 0 0 CO 00 d- h O O I M O O o O O I O O O O O r N- O 4 N CO O ▪ O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I V O LO LO 0 0 O N V O N N N O O 1 O O O O O O O O O 1 O O O O N O 0 0 I- O 000 � O O - V I N CO f- 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO 0 M N M I N N O O I O O LC)COCO(CO CO CO CON O O I O O 0 1 O O O I O O O 1 O O a) CTS 0 cn a) O To • LOO X • LO(O • LOO= LO455 N N N C (SS N N N a) N N N N N O 0 N Q> O N O <>rz D N 0 0 < 0 O N 0 0 co O O O 1 1 1 0 1 M 1 O 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H 0 0 N 0 0 00 z N 0 0 m H N a 0 LO N 2 a w N 0- 0 co d w co a N 0 0 0 x 0 z 0 0 c 0 0 0 J Ln 0 ✓ o Q o o CD I 1 0 1 0 1 I � 1 o I 0CD 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 CO O) O O O I I1.6• I o I M I O CO rn o 0 0 0 I I Lri 1 O 1 1 M 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 co .7r 1 1 c) 0 1 o 0 o O O M O o o CO CD O 0 1 O N I- O • CO O 1 1 O 1 I O o o I f-- O co 0 1 I I O I I I o O I N O I- O I f O O I O Ln O LC) O 0 1 1 O 1 O 1 1 O co co co I I N I O I - I o Ln O rn 0 0 0 I I M I O I 1 N I CD O I N- o co 0 I co O I 1 o I o 1 E c E E c m o m o 0 0 E o f LL - E m `m o' o f w •`6 E m �o E X cn CC. 0 0 : X ct. 0 0 : C 456 c 0 w� o w 0 2 2 0 .�" o7 Q b o w 2 2 0 .0�. Q DL • N O I N O O O O N 0 0 10 O O o o I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o O O v v O 1 OV OV O 1 vO OV o L 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O o O O 0 o O o v I o 1 1 v v o I 1 v v o 1 v v o N 0 O CO 0 I,- 0 V N O N O O O O O I I V N O N O I O O O I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 00 00 O O O O O o O O O - O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O V O I V V O I v V O 0 0 0 0 0 d- O _ 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O I O O 1 1 O V O 1 1 v V O 1 v V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 1 1 O V O I 1 O V O I O V O 10 LI) 10 10 O O O 0 CO 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o I o 0 o I V V o I v v o 10 10 10 LO 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 I o o 1 I o 0 o I 1 v v o 1 v v o LO 10 LO o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o O O o 0 o 1 o 1 1 o v o 1 1 o v o 1 o v o 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O O o O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O I O O O I O V O O V O I O V O L In to 0 0 O 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 N O O 0 O O O O O O O 1 1 O O O O V O I V V O 10 10 10 LO 0 0 0 O V O M O 0 0 O 0 0 O V O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O 1 1 O O O 1 1 v V O 1 V V O LO 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O o O I O 1 1 O v o I 1 v v O 1 v v o -0 C (SS o E Li •`6 E a)0 a5 o v' 0 `m a a> To a5 o v' n3 o c L .0 D G 0 aac ) as ®- 2 > .c 0 aac ) m c 0 aci CZ o w 0 2 2 0 0 Ow= 0 < 0 > z< >_ 3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 00 0 N 2 a w o_ 2 a N 0 0 0 X 0 Z 0 0 0 CO 0 J 457 LC) O O O N CO O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N Lri O O M O c) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O CO O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O In O O O V CO N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) LC) O O O O O O LO O O O N O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O N O O CO O O co O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V LC) O O O V M O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) C 0 N E c 0 (/) C 0 C 0 X co N O T < 0 O Q • • C O w CD C U 0 To c 0° E • CL O • w C 0 0 458 N O N O I O O O a) N 0 0 LC) LnCD 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 1 0V 0V O 1 0V V0 0 LO LO 0 O 0 0 0 0 o v v o1 LO LO LC) LO 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v o 1 v v o N 0 0 CO 0 h O N O I N O I O O O N O 6) CO O f� O N O N O I O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 o O 0 0 O 0V O 1 0V 0V O 1 0V V0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0V O 1 0V 0V O 1 0V V0 O Ln in Ln 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0V O 1 O 0V O 1 O VV O LC) LC) LO LC) 0 0 0 0 CDO O o O O 0 O O O 1 0v 0V O I 0v 0v O LO LO LO L1) 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O o 0 0 0 O O O 1 0v 0v O 1 0v 0v O -0 a) in Lc) Ln CO 0 0 0o _0) 0 ov 0 1 I 0 ov 0 I 0 vo 0 E C Ls) inLn0 0 D 0o0 0O 0O 1 0 0v o 1 o 0v o I o v o CO O Ln LO LO N o O o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 1 0 ov 0 1 0v v 0 c .Q (0 LO LO LO LO V (,) 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 (n 0 0 o 1 ov ov o 1 ov ov o CO J 0 0 0 0 0 0) N o o O O o O O o 0 0 0v o 1 ov ov o 1 ov vv 0 C m `m o a) 0 a) 0 a) m 0 0 °) L L 8O c 7 = C 07 a) — O O C (Yi CO 0 <0 > = a > = Cr) Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 CO Z N 0 0 m H N d 0 L() N 0- H O 0 0 O d 0 O 0 x 0 Z C7 0 0 0 0 J O I o 1 LO O I 0 1 0 Ln 0 I 1 O N O O O O O O O O O 0 I 1 O O N O O O O O O O O O O I 1 Ocp O I 0 I 0 ILC) CD 0 1 0 0 I I 0 1 0 c E c o m 0 0 a tL •L6 E a) rt. ct 0 c 0�2 ow 022 C ) N 459 co O co O O O O O CO V 0 co N O LC) O O O V O CO O co O V LC) 0 O 0 V LC) O O O V O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V LC) LC) LC) O O O V LC) O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) Lf) 0 0 O O O O O V v O Ln Lf) 0 O O O O O O V v O O N O Lrj (O CO N O O N 0 1 L4 O O N O LC) 0 N 0 O O O O V O Lfl O N O O O O O O V O Lfl O O O O O O O V O CO O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O V O O O CO 0 0 O O O N M 0 0 0 0 O O O LC) O M O O O O O O V O a) O) T <0 E. TO a) E � O O w a) c 0 U w To c c c -o E Q O w a) N Y c 0 .cL 460 CEO O CO N O O I O O O a) N 0 0 LO Lf) O CO CD - I O I CO ▪ Lf) o 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 ✓ O I v v O L0 Lf) Lf) 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 ✓ 0 1 v v 0 LO 00 h CO 0 O I O O O 00 LO r CO O O I O O O LC) LO O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I v V 0 LLj Lf) 10 O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 ✓ O I v v O Lf) Lf) O 0 O O O o O ✓ O I O V O LO LO Lf) O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O I v v O LO LO O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I v v O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 ✓ O I O v O Lf) Lf) O 0 O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I O V O LO Lf) Lf) O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O 1 v v O lf) Lf) LC) o 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 ✓ 0 I v v 0 Lf) Lf) LO o 0 0 o O O 0 o O 0 o 0 0 ✓ o I v v o a) a) � To 7 Y - c c `o c > = < > co 3.4. Finishing/Landscaping (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z 0 m H N 0 Ln N 0- H 0 0 O d N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 J LO O 0 0 I 0 I o I Lf) 0 Lf) O o I 0 I o I V I I 1 1 I I 1 I I Lf) 0 N O O O O O O I o O O O 0 I I O O I I 0 Ln 0 C CD O I O I LC) O N CD O O O O O O O O O O I 1 V O O O O I O O I I O Lf) O N O O I O I O I 0 O 0 0) I I ao • I O I O I 0 ▪ I 0 I o O I I o 1 o I 1 o I ▪ E c c E c 0 o 0 -0 0 o m m oQ L_.13E a) m co U_.13E n Ect n > 'ti o = c CC a) — c ) > 0 0(n� Ow 022 O 0�� <0 Ow 022 461 O O O LC) 0 O O CO V 0 O co N 0 LLB LC) 0 0 N- 0 CO CO O CO N O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) c 0 U w To c c Cn 0 O 0 V Lf) LC) 10 0 O 0 V LC) O O O V O 0 O V LC) 0 O O V 0 O O 0 O V N U Q Ow O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N c 0 U s- 0 4) E LO Lf) 0 0 O O O O 0 V v O co LC) O O O O 0 O O 0 V v O 0 N 0 O CO N O O N 00 Lf) C4 N N 0 I I I 10 O N O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O V O O V 0 O O O O CO 0 O O 0 O O O co O O O O O O O Lf) O O O O O O O O V O Lf) O 0 0 O O 0 O V 0 N M 0 O O 0 O O O Lf) O M O O O O O O V O O) c CO 2 X co - 0 N O) T < LL) LO LC) Lf) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 V V O I v v O LC Lf) LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 V v O I v v O CO LO O 0')N O O I O O O 0 co co co CO 0 r LO O h N O A— O I O O O lf) Lf) LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O V V O I v V O LLD O 0 O V 0 O Lf) O O O V O V O O O Lf) O O O V O O Lf) 0 O O V Lf) 0 0 O V O 0 O O O LO LO LC) LC) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O 0 V v O I v v O LO Lf) LC Lf) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 V V O I v v O Lf) L D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O I O V O L() Lf) O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O V O I O V 0 LO Lf) Li) 0 0 0 N O 0 O P 0 co O O O O 0 O V O I v v O LO LC co Lf) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 V v O I v v O O O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O V V O I v V 0 Y O 0 7 Y LO 0 LO 7 c 0 7 = a > _ Lf) Lf) LC 0 a--r E N 0 N 0) /L V 0) NO Ld_ Lci 462 M CN N 0 0 0) CO O o O O O N O I I M I O 1(0 I O Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 00 Z CV 0 0 m H N a N a 0 O I 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 Ct 0 0 0 J � co 0 0 N 0 O 0o 0 I I O I O 1 1 v 1 O I v 1 O I 10 0 N_ 0 0 O 0 I I O I O 1 1 O 1 O I v 1 O 1 co (0 0') 'O O O h O N O I I co I O I O co I N O I I M I OcoI O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 co - co 1 1 CO O O 1 1 O O O O O O 0 (0 0 M 0 6) O 00 Ico O O 1 I O I c co I I O N O I I O O O I O O O 0 I I N o I Ico o O I o O I I o0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 o I o 1 0 co co 0 0 () O O o O O I 1 O I 0 1 1 v 1 0 I v 1 0 I 00 0 0) 0 00co O I r O I I N I O I O I O N 0 M 0 0 0 N O I I N I O I O I O 10 10 CO I I 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 10 1 0 1 E. E c e. E c e. E c • 0 m o m o m m E ° E `g E a)) c� ° E `� E , m o E L. .m E a) m :� SEX . • ,� X �. ,� Y �. �� 463 C 0W ow 022 c L o5 Qo OW 022 0 < ow 022 c L 0 V C`') O 1 O O O a) 0 0 CS) CO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 o o 0 00 I o 0 0v v LC) O O 0 0 0 O O O V V O 10 10 10 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O o O O O O O O 1 v v O 1 v v N O c0 CO 0 O CO LO N O V c`') O O O O NCD CO O co 0) O co U) O N O V () O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 00 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O OV O OV OV O I OV OV O 0 0 0 LO 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O OV O OV OV O I OV OV O LI) (0 LI) 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O I O O O O I O O 0 C)N— O 0 0 0 10 10 LC) 10 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 1 v v 0 10 L0 10 L0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O 1 O O O OV OV O 1 Ov Ov O L (0 L 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 o O O 0 O O 0 O I O O O O I O O O 0 N O 0 O O O LC) L O 0 0 0 N O O 0 Q O 1 O Ov O 1 Ov v O 10 10 10 10 0 o O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 v V 0 1 V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 O O Iv vO N m O E i 0 C N 0 C (0 0 O C CTS2 0 a)m C- >® 0 a�i c 0 ac )m 0v7 > = 0 Q0 > = < > 3.6. Rough Grading (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 z N 0 0 H N a 0 10 N a w 10 N a 0 O w 0 0- 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 J I 0 N_ I O N CO LO N O O 0) O 1 1 CO CO CO CO 1 1 0 O N CO I I I N 0 I 0 M I O N 0) I I O I C E C 03 -0 (1) O N O E LL .13 E 0 0o 0w 022 464 O 0 LO CO O O 0 rn O O rn v o O ao 71- N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O c) M O co co O O O O O O O O L() O O O V O O N N O CO O O O O O O co O co co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L() O O O V LO L() O O O V L() O O O V CO CO O O O O O co O co O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO L() 0 0 O O O O O ✓ v O L() LC) 0 0 O O O O O ✓ v O LC) O _ O O O O o O V O L() O _ O O O O O O v O LO 0 O O 0 O O O v O O 0 0 0 O O O LO 0 O O O O O O O v O LC) O O O O O O O v O M O O O O O O O LO O N O O 0 (0 O O v O c 0 T C o X as a) O N T < Q � O O w c 0 To c Q � O O w 0 c 0 cn i O O o c O c co 2 T C o X co a) O T < 465 Cr) OM) M 0 ONO L o r) O I O O O a) N 0 0 0) 0) CO co N O I N 0 LC) CO CO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v O I v v o LC) LO LC) LO 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o v v d I v v O CO 0) 0 COO CO 0 r) O I O O O C0 O 0 0 Cr) O CO f o CO LO o r) O I O O O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O o 0 O O O O O 0 V V O I v v O 10 LO LC) CC) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 CD 0 o O O O O O V V O I V V 0 CO Cn 0 0 O O O coO o O O O 0 O O O V O I O V O LC) LO LO 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 © O O O O 0 v v O I v v O LO Cn LC) C0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O o v v d I v v O 10 Cf) O O 0 0 0 0 co 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 I 0 v 0 0 0 00 0 (6 O O O o O o 0) O v O I O v O '' E cc)0 LC)0 LC)D N CD D O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O v O I v v o Lo Cn LO LC) 0 o O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O o v v O I v v O 10 10 LC) 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 CD0 0 O O O O O O V V O I v V O YQ 0) ( Y O O) 0 7 C LO C 7 2 Q > 2 3.7. Fine Grading (2024) Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z CV 0 m H N 0 w N a 0 O 0 W 0 N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 C 0 U 0 J 00 I o 00 N O N O I I O O I O O co co N O I N 0 co 00 o u) 0 N O I N 0 I I 1 I 1 I I I co co co O coO I O O c 0 I I Ico O I 0) 0 I Ico O O I 0 r) O O 0) 0 CO O 0 co C9 I O N O I O N 0 CO O O O I I N O I N O 10 0 10 0 I 0 o I 0 o co I O O I O 0 00 0 I O I I CO 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 N O I Cr) O r) 0 r) I-- O I-- O I O I O O) 0 co, N a) N E LL E O) O E rY 9 N> >, X r O_ 0L�w 022 0 0(13 2 ow Dust From — C N Ta o O d O 0 Cn 0) 466 O 0 CO 0 CI I O I N 1 O 1 1 6) t V N 0 Ln COO V N 0 N N Ln Lf) O 0 O 0 O O I O I ci I O I Ln O O O O I O O I v I O I ▪ in O O O O O O O V V O • Ln O O O O O O O O V V O LC) Ln Ln 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V V O V Ln LC) LC) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V V O I V co O Lf) O N 0 O O O) I O I N O I • N O I • N O N O I � I O Ln co O 1 N O co O N 4 N ✓ N O O O 6) O ✓ • N 0 N 1 1 1 I I I I 1 11 I I I I I I I I I Lf) Ln LO 0 0 0 • CO 0 0 - O 0 - O 0 O 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O O 1 1 V 1 O V O 1 V Ln Ln LC) 0 0 0 CO 0 0 • O 0 - O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O I O O I O O I O V O I O V O I V Ln Ln LC) Ln 0 0 ✓ O O O O O O C7 O O O O co O O O O O O O O O N O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 1 O V O 1 O V O I O In 0 L) N 0 - CO 0 'Cr 0 V 0 O 0 — 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 6 O O O I O O O 1 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 V Ln O f� O co O O O 1 O O 1 O O 1 O O O 1 O O O OV Ln LC) 0 0 Ln O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 1 O V O 1 O V O 1 O Ls) Ln Lc) Lc) O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O I O I 1 O O O O O O O O I O V O 1 O V O I O O I O O O I O O O O Ln O O O co O M O N 0 O 7r. N O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O I V Ln Ln Ln O O O V O O N O 0 N O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 1 O I O I O I O 1 1 O V O I O V O I v E E C C E C o) CO f Li 72 E m m o f Li — ECI) m m E a`) `• o °) a`) • o o) a' a) s > L CO o c L o aa) CO — c o > m o 467 < 0 o w 0 o .� < O W 0 O 0 CO > 2 0 > 2 < 0 N CO O N O O I O O O a) N 0 0 0) 0) CO CO N I O N I O L0 Lf) o 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O I v v O L0 LO LO 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O o O O O v O 1 v v O CMO V N O O o I O o 0 CO CD CO O N O O I O O O LC) LO o 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O V O 1 v V O 10 Lf) LO O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 V O 1 v v O Lf) Lf) O 0 O O O O O O o O V O I O V O LC) LO Li) O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O v O I v v O Lf) LO Lf) O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O v o 1 v v o 0 0 O o O o O 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 1 0 v 0 Lf) LC) o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O V O I O V O LC) LC) LO 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O v O 1 v v O Ln Lo LC) o 0 0 0 o O O o O O 0 0 v o 1 v v o Lf) LO Lf) 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 v o I v v 0 0) To 0) 7 Y - c c = c `co c = 0> 2 < > 2 3.8. Fine Grading (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H (Ni 0 0 N 0 0 m z 0 m H N 0 to N 0- 0 O 0 N 0 f1) 0 0 x 0 z 0 0 0 U 0 J Co Co CD I N I O (.1 1 O CO co Ln o Ln O N 1 o N 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 O CO O CO O O 1 O O I O CO CO 0 CO CO O N O O N O CO O CO O I I N O 1 N CO O CO O I 0 1 0 0 1 0 CO O M O I I O 1 O O I O Co O Co O I I I O I O rn o rn o 1 I o 1 o I o 1 0 E ' E E ' a) `3 °� o m m 0 o m a)E o f u_ •E m `3 o f u_ •E a) 0 oo)- ow 022 0 0 Ow 022 0 LO N 468 O LO O a'O I Lf) M O ' � O N O N N 0 LL) L.0 0 O O O O O O O O O I O I O I OV O VV O I Ln Ln Lf) O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O I CD 0 �v I O I �v �v O I L() Lf) Lf) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V v O I v Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V v O I v co O Lf) O N O O O O I O I N O I I N O I N O N O LL) O N 0 O O 0) I O I N I O I I V N O I V N O I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I Ln Ln if) Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 O co O N- 0 _ O 0 _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O O I v O O I O V O I O V O I v Lf) Lfl Lfl 0 0 0 CO 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O I I O O I I O O I I O V O I O V O I V Ln Lfl «) LL) L() Lc) O O O O O O O O O O N O O I o I o O O O O O O O N vI I O V O I O V O I O L() Lf) Ln O O O O N. O O coO V O V o O O ,— O O O O O O O O O O o I V O O I v O O I I O O O I O O O I V Lc) O N..O co O O O I O O I O I O O O I O O O O O v L() Lfl Lf) Lfl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V I O I V I O I I O V O I O V O I O Lf) Lo LL) L ) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O o O O I I I O V O I O V O I O O I O O I O O O O O O I O Ln 0 N_ 0 N 0 COO N 0 O I O I O O I O O O I O O O I O O v L() O N 0 O I O I O I -0 a) E - -0 a) CS) ow LL N E a) (B owE 2 >, 1Y .a I) y. 7cn Qfl- oL<0 w < ow Dust From Lf) Lfl LC O O O O N O O N O O O O I I O OV O I O VV O I VO E. N N '@ E � a) ID O 0 Zr) O C) (B 4) > > E � o -c = � L 0 = CD .T - 469 �0 ow 0 0o) > = CO ' > = <0 N CO f- 0 N O O I O O O a) N 0 0 f0 N O o O L0 L0 Li) o 0 0 o O 0 0 O O O O O ✓ O I v v O Ln Lf) Lf) 0 o 0 O 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 ✓ o 1 v v o 0. o V N O o I O o 0 CO CD N- O O N O O I O O O LC) LO 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ✓ O 1 v V O 10 Lf) 10 O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 ✓ O 1 V V O Lf) Li) O 0 O O O O O O O o O ✓ O I O V O LC) Ln Lf) O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O I v v O Ln Ln O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ✓ O 1 v v O O 0 0 o O o O O 0 0 0 0 ✓ o 1 o v 0 Lf) Li) o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O ✓ O I O V O LC) LC) Li) O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O 1 v v O lf) lf) LC) o O O o O O O o O 0 0 0 ✓ o 1 v v o 10 10 0 0 0 o O O O o O 0 0 0 0 ✓ o I v v o a) a) � To 7 - - c f= - c > 2 < > 2 3.9. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H (Ni 0 0 N 0 0 m z 0 m H N 0 to N 0- 0 O d N 0 0 0 x 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 J Ln Ln O O N 0 O • O 0 I I O O O I 10 O I I 0 - o o 0 1 CO 0) O O O I� I I N O 1 M O 1 v 00 rn O oo O v I I N O coO 1 I 1 I I I I I I I V O Wco O I I O 0 O O O 0 0 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 O 1 I CO CD I Ico O O O O I O I I I O 0 I O O I O 0 0 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 0 • 0 1 0 0 1 0 10 Ln O o N O O • O O I I I O O O I M• CD O 6) O M I I I - O - O l o cs) co co I 1cdco - O N O 0 I I I 0 • 0 o 0 t o 0 0 as E 0 • Q m rt.m 0 • a m To0 Q A .c CI3 U C • 7 0 0cn 0 2 Ow O" <0 Ow 0" Q Ow O O N O Li? I- O V O O I I N O I co O Ln N O a) N 0 U Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 O O O O O O 0 10 0 0 O O O OV OV O OV O 0O LO Ln LC) Ln 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 1 o 0 o 1 ov ov o ov V o cc)O O O O coco o co O O I I N O I C) O «) N O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O I I 0 N O CO' O Ln ONO 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ln Ln o 0 0 O CO 0 O 0 O O O O I I O O O O I 0 OV O V OV 0 Ln LC) Ln O 0 0 O CO O O O 0 0 O O I I O O O O O OV O V OV O Ln in Ln 0 0 0 O O O O 1 O VV O 1 O OV O O OV O Ln Ln 0 0 0 Ln V 0 CO 0 O 0 O O 1 1 O O O 1 O OV O O OV O Ln Ln O O O Ln `1"O M O O O 0 O I I O O O I O OV O O OV O Ln Ln Lc) O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O I I O VO O I 0 OV O O OV O Ln Ln Ln O O 0 0 0 o O o O O o O O I I O VO O I O OV O O OV O Ln O 0 0 CO 0 CO0 N O 0 O 1 1 1 O O 1 O O O I O OV O Ln Ln 0 0 0 CCO 0 N 0 O OCS) O o O 1 1 O 0 O 1 O OV O O O V O Ln Ln Ln Ln O O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O 1 1 O VV 1 O OV O OV O OV O E 0 O C) (B 0 O C) m 0 O m m m m 2 .a3 _ 2 O N c > L6 0 N N c O 0 m 0 0 ❑cn ❑5 > _ <0 > = < > 3.10. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 U N 0 U Z N 0 U m H O d 2 d w O 0- 0 0 U X 0 Z 0 0 0 U 0 J I I 'a-) >. E c m .X 2 0 ❑ u 471 O O O O O OD N O LO. I,- CD N O I OM O V O I (V — O M - ' O L() L() in Li) O O O O N O O O O O N O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O I V O I I O O O I V V O LO U) LCD O 0 O 0 0 - 0 O CDO O 0 - O O O O O 0 ▪ - O 0 O O O O O I O O V O I O O O I V V O 00 ✓ O LO O O 0 0 CO O I co O V O I N co O I co - — O CO O LO CD 0 N O I co O I V O I I CO N O M O I I I I I I I I I I I I I LCD Ln O O • O - O O O O - O O O co O O O co coO O O O O O O I O O I V O I I O O O I V O LLD 0 0 O O CO O O O O I I O I I O I O O O I o Ov LLi LO LC) O O O ✓ O O O O O O0 CD O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O V O I I O V O O V O LC) LCD O 0 • O - O 0 O LCD O coO O O O O O O O N O O O O O I O O 1 O O I V O I 1 1 O O O I O V O Ln O O O O LO d O CO O 0 O I I O I I O I I O O O I O v LLj LO LLi O O O 71- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I V O I I O V O I V O LLi LLi LLD LLD O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O V O I V O I I O V O O V O M • O O M O O O O c O O I - O I - O I O O I O O O O O co O Ln O Ln O O) 00 O N 0 O O N O O O O O O O O N O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O LO LLD O O co O co - o O coO • O o N 0 0 0 0 0 - O 0 0 O O I O O 1 O O I O O I 1 1 O V O I O V O C C C) a) -13 N 0ID 0) o • f a) coo f m m o f a) .a) a) o °' CT) m `o °) co o o• w o - ¢o ow o ¢ ow o 0 ova_ 8 2 > _ ¢o > _ LO LO 472 N c- O Ln N O N 0 0 CO 0 0 N O I N O O Lf) N Ls-) in O O o O I O O o ✓ v o Ln Ln 0 0 O O 0 I 0 0 0 ✓ v o c) O I co O � N O Ce) CD CO O Ln N O in in o o O O I O o O ✓ v o Ln Ln 0 0 O O 0 I O O o ✓ v O Lf) O O Q 0 O O O O V 0 Ln co _ O o O O O O V o U) O _ O o I O O O O v O Ln 0 O o O o 0 0 O v 0 Ln O CD CD o O O O O V Ln O N Q o 0 O O O V o LC) Ln O 0 O O I 0 0 0 ✓ v O Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 o ✓ v 0 Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 H Ln N 2 d a Ln N 2 11 w N 2 0 H O d 0 O 2 d w 0 a N 0 O7 O 0 x 0 Z C7 0 CC 0 0 0 J Lf) 0 0 I O O I O o O o OV o 0 I o o I 0 - 0 0 0 o CO CO CO C O I C O O N CO CO CO N O I c.1 O O N I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I co co O • O I O O O O O O O O I I O I I O I O Lf) LO I O • O I O O O O O N I co co co O O I O o O o I o O O O I I I O I I O I O I I I Ico co O 0 I 0 0 o 0 1 0 in 0 N O N 0 N 0 O I I O O 1 O O O O OV M O C) o N O Co I I o O O - o rn o rn o Ln o co I I • O I co O co O 4 1 N CO 0 CO 0 v 0 CO I I 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 10 - Q c c -13 0 • a a • E o Q m o Q m • o Q m m o Q X tY. : X i. cc. ( C ct. 473 c • Lo C CT C i m rs c L > co LS c m c • rs 0 0cn Ow 0.� 0 Ow 0.. <0 Ow Ow. < Ow 0 CO CO N O N ▪ CO O CO LC) O ' Lo O 0) O I Oj CO 0 - O 0 N O ai N 0 0 LC) Lf) 0 0 0 N CDN CDCDO 0 O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O 1 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 V V O O o I Lo O O o O o O ✓ 0 0 co co O O CO • 0 N ' O LO LC) LO L) 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 - o O O 0 0 0 o O 0 0 o 1 v v o I v v o N- CO CO N O I- CO 0 LO O cc; 1 O I - O O N O M N O tri - 0) O r CO 0 O N O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L1) 0 O CO 0 CO O O - O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O V O 10 O O CO O CO O O - O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O I O O O O V O LL) LO L() Ls-) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O V O I O V O I O V O O V O O LO 0 O N O O O I O O O LC) 0 LO V 0 CO CO 0 COO 0 I O O O 1 O O O O OV O LO O O LO 0 LO 0 CO N O M O 0 O N O O N O 0 N- O O 0 O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O V O Lo LC) Lo co O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O o 0 O o 0 O o 0 O o I o V o I o V o I o V o o v o Lo LL) Ln 10 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O V O I O V O I O V O O V O O LC) I- 0 N N- 0 LO 0 0) - 0 O O O O O CD N-O O 0 CD O I O O I o O I O O O O O O o N- CO 0 CDO x O o I o 0 0 O O I o N- o o - CO N 0 0 0 0 o 0 o I o 0 o o 0 0 10 LO co 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 o • 0 o - 0 o _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o 1 o v o 1 o v o 1 o v o m m E `0 `0 °) a) 0 a) 0 0 0) m `0 • 0 a) T X L 'O '- T .-. X i -o '- T i O = c L 0 0. 0 • 0 8 0 0 m > :a 0 c 0 aa) m 0.7, 0 0& > = 0 > _ <0 > = < > 3.12. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 0 LO N 2 0 H O 2 0 0 O 2 N 0 0 0 0 Z C7 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 474 co O N O 0 CO N O O O O 10 co N O O N O O O O O O O O N O O M CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O V O O V O O O O O O CO CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O V O O 00 O CO N O O O O O O O O Ln 0 O O V CO O CO N O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O 10 O O ✓ O O 0 CO CO COO N O 0 CO (O M O N N O (O 0 O 0 0 O O O co O O O O O O O Lfl O O O O O O O V O 1 V 0 N 0 0 O O O d" 0 N O 0 O O O Lc) O O O O O O O O v O Ln O O O O O O O V O O O O Lc) O O O O O O O v O Lc) 10 CO N co o�� c 0 0 U c 0 O) @ T < 0 O Q • O w a) N O 0 (6 c c N Q � • O w a) 0 O 0 cll 0 Y O o c C m 2 475 � O O I N O M LO O LO O O o (0 o 0) 0 I N 0 a) (Nr 0 0 Lf) 71- CD I N O Li) Lf) 0 0 N O O 0 0 O I O O O 1 o O O 1 OV VV O LC) LO co Ln 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O I o 0 o I v v o 1 v v o L,.) N O f� co O O O 0) O I N O N O I- CO O cri M O N- 0)) CDN 0 I I I I I I I I I I I Ln O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O V O Ln 0 LO O O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O I O V O LO LO Lf) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O VO O O OV O I O VV O LO V 0 N O O O O O LO 0 CO_CO 0 COO 0 O 0 0 O O I o O O 1 O V O Lf) 0 LO 0 CO N 0 C')O 0 I O O O 1 O O O 1 O OV O 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O o O I o o o o I o 0 Ln Ln Lf) O O O O o O O 0 O O 0 O I O O O O I O O O N N- O LO 0 C O 0. CD CD 0 0 o O O I O O o rn N- o O N O 0 0 0 o 1- 0 0 0 0 o 0 o I o 0 0 (0 Lf) Lf) 0 0 0 0 O O OV O O OV O I O VV O a) _ a) O O a) O C N a) O C ,�+ - 'p 7 Y C LO 8C 7 0- LO C 7 C C 7 o 2 Q 2 Q 2 3.13. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 Ca Z N 0 0 m H N d 0 N 0- H O 0 0 O d N 0 O 0 X 0 Z C7 0 I0 0 O O o_ o o o co c.1 O I NCD O co O Ico cz> O O rn O I 0 0 M 0 I I O 0 0 O o C N LO a) rt.>. E X ,Q � Y T U X C _cu m co o- C o c as 0 0 cn � O w 0 w a 2 476 LC) N O O O ti N CA M N co O O CO O O O O O M O O N O O -0 a) • Q O w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) O O O @ T < O V N O O O Lc) LC) O O LC) CO CO M M M CA co O Q O • w O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) N c 0 N c c N CT) O O O O V N O M O O CO O M O O O O O O V O O 0 O Q O • w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) c 0 O LC) M O N O N O O O 0 O O O LC) O O - O O O O ✓ O O - 0 LC) M ▪ O N O LC) M O N O CO 0 O O O O O O co O O O O O O O Lfl O O O O O O O V O Lf) V O N O O O O O LC) 0 O N O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O v O LC) O O O O O O O O V O 6) I- 0 O O O • O O O CO 0 O O O O O O C) O O O O O O v O X LO O t co N O N O O O O 0 O O O CO M N O O I I I CO O O 0 0 O O O co O O O O O O O LLD O O O O O O O V O LC) V 0 N 0 O O O O Lt) d O N O O O O O LC) O O O O O O O O v O O O O O O O O O O V O LC) f- O 6) 0 0 O O 00 N- O O O O O O Ln O C) O O 0 O O O V O Y O O c Lo 2 a) O) T < N 6) O LLD M LC) LC) 0 0 O O O ✓ v LC) LC) O 0 O O O O ✓ v Ln LC) O LO M ▪ LC) LO O LC) co I I LC) O _ O O O V LC) O _ O O O V LC) O O � O O V O O O O O O O O O O LC) 0 O O O O v LC) O O � O O V N N N 0 O O N O O O O LC) O N O O O v Y O LC) LC) O M 477 U w 0 0 O CO O O M N O O O Lf) O aJ N 0 0 LC) O O • O N O Lc) • co o O N O 1 co Lf) O 1 LLi LO O 0 0 o O O O O O v v O in Lc) 0 0 0 o O O O O O v v O O 00 Ln O O O O O O LCD O 00 LC) O O 0 6) L() O Ln LI) 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O v v O LC) LC) 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O V V O L() 0 O O O O O O O O O 1 O V O Lc) O O o. c)0 0 0 0 O I 0 v 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O 1 0 v 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I 0 v 0 LL) 0 0 0 o O O O O O O 1 O V O Lc) O O • O O O O O O O o v o Ln 0 0 - 0 O O O O O I V O O Lf) L() o O 0 O o 0 O O O O O V V 0 Cco U) O O i 0 c O O 2 < W C m 2 3.14. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 Z N O 0 0 LO N 2 a 1- O 2 d 0 O 2 a w a N 0 O 0 X 0 Z C9 0 in 0 N c) N O O O I I O O 1 O O 1 V O I O O 0 0 N O O O I O O I O O I LT M O I r- M O c N O O I Lc O I 0 • o • O o co N O 1 N O I Lf) O I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I • O • 0 - 0 O O I O O I O O I O O 0 I Io O I I O I I O Ln Ln V O V O O 1 O O I O O I O O I co O 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 I O O O I 0 1 0 1 1 0 I I 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 I I 10 0 0 - 0 O O 1 O O I O O I co O M O M O I 1 O I O I M O I 1 N O 1 N O 1 O O 1 M0 O M O Lf) 0 I 1 O O I O O I O O I C C C OCO • N N O Q a O Q (B O Q (0 X �. Y X �. • 1' T �. Y 478 E lD O (n U C LO O O U O• O O U C O 0 CO � O 0- 0 o�� O w 0 � < 0 O w 0. < r— O O O O I N co O I O N N O) O CO O CO O O O CO N O O LC) C') O I O in O a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O I O O O I O O O V V O I v V O Ln O o O O O I v o rn CV Cr) Ln O O O v Ln 0 O 0 v CO 0 rn O 0 O O -0 4) Q � 0 w O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O a) c U N 0 0 In LO LC) LO LO O O O O O o O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 o O 0 0 O 0 0 0 V o o I o 0 o V V o I v v o LO LC) CO N Ln N m 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O O O V LO O O O LC) 0 O O 0 o v LO 0 O O O O V 0 0 O 0 LO 0 _ O O O V Y O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O c a3 CO CO 0 M N O I O 0 LC) O 0o I O 0 O) O CO O O O O Ln O O O v v O O O O Ln 0 O 0 v Ln 0 O O v O O r` O c > O Ln O in co 0 O O I LO Ln O Lc) co in 0 O O O O O O 1 O V Ln O O O O O O O 1 O V Lc) O O O O O O O O V 0 0 O O o O O o O CO O O O O O O Lf) 0 O O O 0 O 0 v Ln O O O O O O O O V N O o o O 0 0 0 O 0 0 Ln O O N O O O O O v • N c N N O = T i -0 N ' O c • <0 O 00 O O I 0 CO O O I O) I I I Ln O O O O O O I Ln O O O O O O I V O O o I o LO O O o O O o I v Ln O O O O O O I V C— (0 4) c = < LC) O Ln LC) O Ln O O O O O 0 O O O O O v O LO 0 O O v O O O O O O 0 O O o O 0 v O LC) O O 0 v LC) 0 O O V LO O O O v 0 0 O O O Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 m Z N 0 0 ❑ N 2 d 10 Lc) N 2 a H O 2 d ❑ O d N 0 C1) 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 J Li" 10 N CO 479 O LO I o v o 1 0) 10 0 1 v O cci 0 N 0 (0 L() 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 1 O I 1 ov I O I ov I O I 1 Ln LO 0 0 (O 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 O 1 ov I O I ov I O 1 1 0 O 0 0 LO 0 I O I co I O 1 I O I 1 LO O O O 0 O O O v v O LC) LO 0 0 O 0 O O O v v O LO N O c.c.; O 0 0 0 0 LO N 0 o o. I l 0 10 I O I.- I O 1 I N 0 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Ln O M O O O O I O O I O I I O 0v O O I I O I I O I Lc) O _ O O 1 1 O O O O v Ln (0 Lc) O .1-O co O O O O O co 1 1 O 1 O 1 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 1 O ov O co I o l 0 0 I o 1 0 l 0 1 0 0 0 I l 0 0 1 l 0 1 l 0 1 0 0 0 X m 2 co Lc) co 0 0 0 O In O (0 O Q eC O w LO 0 O cc) o O O O O l 0 1 1 0 1 0 I o 1 0 1 1 0 v o O I o 0 0 0 1 v O LO 0 O L0 LL) o O o o 0 o I v 1 0 1 1 0 v o 0 - 0 0 000 0 l 0 o l 0 1 0 l 0 1 1 0 0 0 l o 0 0 l 0 I o l 0 1 0 0 0 N O V 0 O O O N C Y a O >, C 0 Lo LO 0 0 co co O O O O O 1 O O O 1 O v O 1 1 O v O C C o co co E 4) on O O) o (0 O O E N O C (0 fl- C O C E co i >w" w w )Qo Oa C < Oa O0 (Ts > _ M LO 0 0 f- 0 N O O O O a) N 0 0 CD I I LO CD - I O I LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 OO v v o OV OV o LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o I I 0v 0v o 0v 0v o I I I I I I I I LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 OV OV O OV OV 0 LO LO LO Lf ) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 OV OV O OV OV O in LO 0 O o O O O O O I O OV O O OV O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 I 10 v o 10 0 o LO LO LO LO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 o 0 0 o LO 0 0 O O o O O O 1 1 0 ov o o 0v o L() LO 0 0 0 O 0 0 Q 0 I O O O O OV O LO LO LO O O O - O O O O 0 1 O O Iv vO LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O O 0 1 1 v v o LO LO LO LO 0 o 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O OV OV O O N O C) (6 N Oo m a) L9 L 0 2 ¢' 0 > i Q _a) as 3.16. Asphalt Paving (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 0 LO N a_ 1- 0 2 0_ 0 0 0 w 0 0_ N 0 0) 0 0 0 Z 0 0 co 0 I o I o I M O I O 1 0 I M I - l o 1 I a) • E V) .' E c0 0(n CO N 0 - v O I O O O C m 0 0 O X ct •O' 0 T O X T Nas Ow a_ 0 i 05 <0 481 O O v 0 O N 0 r) LO 0 1' CO 0 N O O O O 0) N O O C N OD O Q • Ow M O a) c a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cn c 0 c LO N O N O O LO O O V C N Q O w 10 O O O V Q) c m a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) c 0 U w 1 I N N T = O 0 0 u) - LO N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O N O O N 0 LO O O O O O ✓ O - O 0 O O O - 0 0 O O O Lf) O O O O O ✓ O LO O O O O O ✓ O - 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O O Qc > co N O L9 T <0 LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O LO LO LO LO O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O 0) CO LOO 0 V N O N O O O O CO L• OO O CD N O N O O O O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O o O O O ✓ V O 1 V V O O O 10 O O O V LC) O O O V O O O O O O Lf) O O O V O O O L0 O O O V LO O O V O O O O O O LO LO LO LO O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O I v v O LO LO LO LO O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O LO Lfi O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O V O LO LO O O o O O o O O O O O O O O O V O 1 O V O LO LO LC) O O O _ O 0 O O O O O O O O O O V O 1 v v O LO LO LO LO 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 V V O Y O O ( Y O Q) c c = a > al 10 LO LO CO 482 N 0 U I O I I 00 I O 1co 1 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N O U N 0 0 00 z N 0 U m H N a N a w 10 N a 1- d w o 0- 0 0) O U X 0 z 0 0 O 0 0 J in 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06v 1 o I 1 06 I o I 0 I 10 10 0 0 O o O q I o o I I • I o I I co coO I I 00 I O 1co I 71- co co I o I I o I o I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 10 L0 O 0 COCD O O O Q I O O I I • I O I ov O 0 1 I I 1 O I I I I O I I I 10 0 0 CO O o O (7 CO I o o I I 0v I o I v0 I M 10 10 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 CD 6 CD I I o I o I I v I o I v I O O I I I I 0 I I I I o I I I 10 10 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0 I I o I o I I v I o I ov I in in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I I 0 I o 10 I CO CO I 0 0 I 1 o I 0 I o I 0 1 1 0 1 0 I o 10 00 0 I o 0 0 0 0o 0 c O U a) E O Q +O„ C 0 0 0�� ow <2 E0 0 in 10 0 0 0 LO 0co o 0 I I ov Lci o I ov a)O U a)N O 0)O • E a) C a) to (a O 0 T C (x0 T •O L (0 !n U C - O �r - - 0— 2 < 0 Ow • < 20 0" < o w Architectu 0.98 483 O 1 ci V O co CEO O co N 0 O I 00 N O V O O O (73 a) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I 0v ov o I I 0v ov o 0v 0v o 00 00 00 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 O O o I I 0v 0v d 0v 0v o O I O N O O O O O O O N O CO 00 O O) CO O O I co (NI O I V O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 00 0LO 0 O N O O O O O O O O O O I O v v0 O 0 ▪ 0 0 0 O N O O O O O O O O O I o 0v O I I V0 0V o 0V 0v O Ln Ln Ln O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O OV O I O OV O O OV O Li) LO LO Ln 0 O O 0 0 Cb O O O O O O 0 O O O O 1 1 VV OV O OV OV O L0 LO LO LC) O 0 0 0 0 CO 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 1 1 O O O 1 1 o O O o O O Lr) Lf) 10 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O o I o 0V o I I o 0V o o 0v o LC) LC7 LC) O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O OV O I I O OV O O OV O LC) LC) L() O O O CD CO 0 CVO O O O O CD CO 0 0 CD O O O O 1 O OV O OV OV O LO LO LO LO O O O O 0 N M 0 O O O O O O 0 CD CD CD oO 1 O O O 1 1 Ov Ov O OV OV O 0 o I I 0 0 0 0 0 CO o o O O o O O o o o OV o 1 1 VO OV O OV OV o a) a) E `m 0 a m 8 0 a) m `m 0 a) > X L 'O �, - X >, i -p L '6 c CO D 0 m m_ > m 0 N C 0 a) m Ow 0 oci)> = o ¢o > = < > 3.18. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 0 0 CO Z N 0 0 W N 2 0_ W O 2 0_ N 0 O 0 0 Z C7 0 0 0 0 J I I a) m >. E X c m .� 0 o u 484 O O O CO O O O O CO V CO N LO O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O Lf) O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO 0 0 O V LC) O 0 O V O V O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lo LO O O O O O O O V v co co co O O O O O O O O V v O O N O LO O CO N O 0 N O Ln CO O CO N O 10 O N 0 O O O O V O N O O O O O OLu O O V LO O O V O O O O O O CO O O 0 0 O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v O Lf) O O O co O O O V O CO 0 CO 0 0 O O O N CO 0 0 0 0 O O O O co) O O O O O O V O Ln LO CO CO') C 0 N Q O Ow 0 c 0 0 U N O � T < 0 C co N d � O • w U — W C L N o < U 0 c 0 a) c 0 U w 0 0 4) • E N co 2 Q) C co 2 485 a) N 0 0 O O I LO C LO LO LO Lf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O OO V v o OV OV O LO LO LO LO 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 o 1 1 0V 0V 0 0V 0V 0 co OO LO N 0 4 O O O O co co o rn co 0 LO N I I v 0 1 0 0 0 1 I I I I I I I LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 OV oV O OV oV 0 LO Lf) Lf) LO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0V OV O OV OV O n LO 0 O O o O O o o 1 1 0 0v o 1 0 0v o LO LO LO LO 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 v v 0 1 v v 0 LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 v v o 10 Lo 0 0 O 0 o O 0 O -o 1 1 0 ov 0 I 0 0v 0-111 0) Lf) Ls-) O 0 O O o O E O OV O O O O I Ln LO Lf) - N O 0 0 0 0 (V oov o ov ov O N LO LO LO LO C) 0 0 O 0 C 0 0 o 0 0 0 1 1 v v O 1 v v O U C a) LO 0 0 0 C)0 0 o O 0 > I 1v v 0 1 0 "= m di C lE a) p 7 C p p r 02 ¢'0 > = < > = crj Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m z N 0 0 H N d 0 LO N d w N a 1- 0 a 0 O w 0- 0 O 0 X O z 0 0 0 O co 0 J LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 O co O V O 1 1 v LO O O o I 0 0 1 O N 0 N 0 0 I Lf) O) O I O O Ico 0 O) O 6) O O 1 O co o_ oco I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O V O 1 I v LOco O 6) I 0 1 0 r) O 0 (D. 0 I 0 Lo 0 0 co o 1 1 0 0 1 1 v c c 'a-) m E 0 as E ' X .= I) X .o- 486 V) p 7 N U C_ a) a). 7 0 Ocn� Ow 0.=L. 0�2 <0 Ow O O O O O O 6) V O O ✓ CV • N 0 CV CO 0 ) N 0 dr N O LO O O O O a) 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c 0 U y To c c c 10 O O 0 v LO O O 0 v O N O N LO O O O V LO 0 O O V LO 0 O 0 v LO 0 O O V N O 0 N O 0 LO 0 O 0 V Ncp E Q Ow O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O a) � U O cL 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 ✓ v O O Cs 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O ✓ v o 0 ✓ O ▪ N 0 O ©. V N 0 1 1 I LO O _ O 0 O O O O V 0 Ln O _ O O O O O O V O 10 O O O O O O O V O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O O LO 0 O O O 0 0 0 O v 0 10 O O O O O O O V O 0 N • 0 0 O O O 0 CO 0 O O O 10 0 N O O O 0 O O V O Y -o O c O c N • 2 a) O E < 0 LO If) LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ V O v v O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v o 1 v v o 0) CO 0 • (O N O 6) CO O 4 CO 0 N h O V N O O O O I� O dr N O O O O LO LO LO Ln 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O o O O O ✓ V O V V 0 LO LO LO LO O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 ✓ V O V V O LO LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O V O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O I v v O LO LC) LO LO O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ V O v v O LO LO O 0 O O o 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o V o o v o LO LO O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O V O O V O LO LO LC) O 0 0 _ O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O V O V V 0 LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 ✓ V O V V O Y O O 5 'Er)Oa) c 7 C _ < > co 3.20. Utility Trenching (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 0 O W 0 0_ N 0 O 0 0 Z 0 LO 10 0 V 487 CO O LC) o CO o rn v o N O I O 1 O v aN° 0 LO LC) LO LC) LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1( 0 0 0 0 10 10 LC) LO 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 I� 0 I v 0 1 1 v v 0 1 O Ln O h O N O N O I O I NO O I N O O LC) N O No O I O 1 No O I v N 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO co 10 O O O 0 o O q O q O o O v 0 1 1 6 0 I v 0 1 1 0 v 0 1 10 O O O O o 0 I l 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 o v 0 10 L() in L() Lo LC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 1 I� o I v 0 1 1 0 v o l 10 LC) LC) 0 0 0 0 O 0 Q 0 O v 0 1 I 6 0 I v 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 I l 0 1 1 0 1 o 1 o o L() LC) L() Lr) O O O O O O O O O O O O o o 10 o 10 o I o o o L() LC) L() Lc) O O O o o O 0 O o O o 0 O V 0 1 V 0 I v 0 1 1 o o LO O 6) O N O 0 I 0 I O O I o O I 0 0 0 co o c; o I O O I O O I O O O Ln co L(j O O 0 co O O O o N O 0 1 1 o 1 1 0v o I 0v o 1 1 O 0 O O v O 1 C a) a) a) o N N E N W E o a a) a) o 0_ a) m o a a) a) E a`) `o .c T X eC Y >, X T E•)( c ly• Y T X i '6 T X A p 8 rn a) . in o = c a) a) — = u) o c 5 in o r) E a) c c ns Yv c 0o 0w O,cL. 0-2 <0 0w O,cL. c 0w O,cL. 0 0U)� > 2 02 a) N LO r - O CO 0 N O I O O O LO Ln LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 o 0 0 0 ✓ v O I v v O LC) LO LC) LO 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 I v v o I v v o V CCOO 0 N 0 N O O O O ✓ C• COO 0 • N 0 N O O O O 1 I I I I I I I LO LO 1-0 LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O o O O O ✓ v O I V V O 0 0 0 • 0 O O O O O o O O O O O 0 I V V O I V V O L) Lc) O O O O O c)O O O O O O O O I O V O I O v O LO LO LC) LO 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O I v v O LO LO LO LO ^' 1.1O 0 O 0 0 0 CD- 6 O o O O O ✓ v O I v v O Ln Lo 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 RI I 0 v 0 I 0 v 0 N CZ i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q m I O v O I O v O ''^^ VJ C In 0 0O CO 0 0 0 _O O • O O o O O O (./) I O v O 1 v v O co E • LO LO LO LO E 0 o O O O w < 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 o I v v o I v v o (/) 0 L0 LL7 LO LO O L 0 0 0 0 V O o o O O o (6 O 0 0 0 0 0 I v v o I v v o LET c To a)• Y o c O d c -cs c c • o c = <0 > _ < > i 4 Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated o Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 CO Z N 0 0 m H 10 N 0 us N 0- H 0 d 0 O 0 N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 a) E E � Tocc 0 H o H Q 1- 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 489 CN N a) N Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m H N a N a 1- a 0 d w a N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 E To E f6 @ .�' C (0 6 C (0 0 U) � H 0 H < H 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 m H N 2 0_ 0 N 11) w N 2 0_ 0 d w 0- 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 a) m U 4) Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m -o a) To in To > To-a T E (0 : o o Eo 0 is �a 490 E f0 O C f0 O a1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a) 0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m m m m m is 0 m n t6 > o o a) 0 0 0 c -a) o a) 0 0 0 s cr E 7 a) -0 c ) c c > 7 a) -0 7 a) 7 n a) 1< Q W a CC 1 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H 0 0 0. 0 a w N 2 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 Z 0 cc c 0 .o m a� E m T .—Eco ( =cco C o cn 2 i2 o 1- Q L V 491 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated a) N 0 0 O N Z c N 0 0 O 0 Z N 0 0 m Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1OE PM1OD PM1OT PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T co I I I c co L L 1 11 1 I I c� G co 1 1 1 1 1 1 -a 0 co I I I I 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 c co coC I I I I I I o a_ a) as 0 ( > E > c TO ( To O ow � o§3 12 ¢ 1 . o a) N 0 0 O N Z H N 0 0 O 0 Z N 0 0 H N 0 0 L cN 0- w 0 1- d 0 0 w 0 0 N 0 O 0 0 Z O L LO V I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 _ a) -O a) -O a3 fn a3 a) To-0To "if"; To> To, X O O O O CO 7 O 7 O O O 0 ¢ cn cn o cn CC cn 1 < ¢ cn cn a> ( CC cn I 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule ' ase Iescn.tio !Tor 'a .- ,TXTil a ' - TiMa3 N 0 0 co I I I O O O N N M N N O O O Ln Lfy Li) CO N N 0 O N N N CO O N N CO n LC) CO O N 0 N 0 N 0 M N M O V Site Preparation Site Preparation Site Preparation Finishing/Landscaping O1 C t6 0 Rough Grading 493 O N O O O N O) N N N NCONNN O O O O O LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) 10/29/2024 CO CO CO 'I- N N N N O O O O NNNN 0) O) CO 0 N N N M V CO LO 0) V N O N N N O N O NO 0 N 0 O N N 0) — LO V CO 0) c 0 0) c 0 0 c Building Construction Building Construction 0) .5 ca Asphalt Paving Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 0) c c 0 H Utility Trenching 5.2. Off -Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 'ours 'er •aA T 0 a) a) Q 0 E Z i - a\FTiii' o N- ti CO H 0 N- o HO r— 0) O v r-- • co co M V co co V co N N N- CO O O O O O O O O O O O O (73 O O r� O O O o r� O O o O r— O O o CO V 4 coV co V O V a)V O N 4 V co op 00 co CO 00 CO CO N CO CO — CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 cc; O O CO 00 W cc; 00 O 00 N- O 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O co. O O O O O O O M 4M r M M M 0 L.L N N V N N N N NNNN NNNN N � a) a) a) a) a) 0 0 _0 0 _ _ ir)_ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Site Preparation N a) 0 • 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 0 0 0 Excavators Rough Grading N a) 0 (0 0 Rough Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Rough Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diese Rough Grading N 0 0 a) 0 (1) a) a) O 0 0 Excavators to a) 0 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel 0) 0) 0) 0) c c c c • fs =a is O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 c c c c it itu u (70 (7 a) (0 to 0 0 0 cn a) c U1 0 o 0 Li Building Construction Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Building Construction a) 0 LD Ln v 494 o O O co co 0 co 0) co N- O V 00 (O co () V O O O O O O O O O O O O (O O CO CO (O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O N N N NNNNNN a) a) a) a) a) a) H H H H H � N 0 a) 0 0 0 a) EEEEEE Building Construction Asphalt Paving Paving Equipment Asphalt Paving Asphalt Paving Air Compressors Architectural Coating Utility Trenching 5.2.2. Mitigated a) 3 0 Q a) 0 'ours 'er'a� fC 0 0) a) Q a) Q E 7 Z ,l . - 1= 0 r— N- CO O N- CO 0 CS) 0 v N- co co co cY co M CO N N I'- M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O co ti o O o O O (0 V 4 co V (0 V O co V co N 4 4 O () a0 00 co co (O c') co 00 () CO — a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O co O O O O O co W 00 a0 CO 00 00 cO 00 cc) CO 00 f— CO a0 (O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) a) 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Site Preparation a) 0 0 CCCCC LE LL LL LL LL V V V V - a) 0) a) a) 0) H H H H H � � a) a) a) a) EEEE Excavators Rough Grading N 0) 0 (0 CD Rough Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Rough Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diese Rough Grading a) a) 0 Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final (7a) a) 0) a) CD a) a) 0 0 0 0 Excavators (0 N a 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel O) Cr) O) 0) CCCC D ' '3 (0 a) a) m CD CD 0 C7 a) a) a) a) CCCC Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final N a) H (7(7a) (f) ti 0 0 a) 0 0 0 O O N � c o 0 LOL Building Construction Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Building Construction O O Lc) LO CO Tier 4 Final 0 O 0 0 O a) 0 O 0 0 2 495 m CN CD 00 CO CD 71- M CV L O O O O O O O O O cos • O� CO O co 00 co co V O O O O O O O O O 0 W O O O aD 0 0 0 O O O 0 O N N N (6 (6 CO CO c0 CCCCC LL LE IL L.L L.L V V V . V U) N N 0) H H H 1— H NNNU)� N U) a) N O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Asphalt Paving Paving Equipment Asphalt Paving Asphalt Paving Air Compressors Architectural Coating Utility Trenching 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated ►•caitcataMI ene-Tva nos .er 1aA :IiF 1►FTiir; LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT H H ❑ ❑ _ = LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT O O O O 7 OO c I 17 co N I I O O O I o O I I Onsite truck LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT H H ❑ ❑ _ = I LDA,LDT1,LDT2 O O 0 0 O O O O I I O 110 a) I C C C C C O O O O O ac) c co as 03 co as a 15 15 a co as 03 m 0 co m m co a Q a a Q O ) 0 CD 00 0 0 0 a a a _c- - - 0) 0) 0) N 0 N N 0 O O 0 0 Onsite truck Rough Grading O) Y O c O C I > _ Finishing/Landscaping Finishing/Landscaping Finishing/Landscaping Finishing/Landscaping Onsite truck Finishing/Landscaping O I0 496 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- 00 22 O 0 co N 0)O c c = c c 0 co > 2 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- 00 22 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT - 1- 00 22 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- 00 _ = LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 0▪ 0 22 I-- O co h 0 0 f� 0 0 f- 0 0 I I I N I 71; 00 N Onsite truck O O O O) 0 • 0 C O0 GI • > Onsite truck C C C c .0 0 .0 .0 I Q O I d c;I 0 0 O I O) 0 0 C_ O • C Onsite truck 0 I � Onsite truck 0) CD 0) 0) C C C C C O) 0 cs 0 C O Onsite truck O 0 0 0 0 N O O O 0 0) 0) 0) c c C c c CCCCC EIEEEE C C C 0 0 0 0 0 > > > > > @ O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o a U U U U U a a a CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 C0 0 a1) C 0 2 2 2 • 0) 0) 0) a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 4) 4) 'O 0 '0 'O 'O L L L L L L L L L L .T T T T T C C C 7 C 7 7 C U) d Q V) d U 0 0 0 0 i LL E m CD m m m < < < < < < < < < < D D D D D 5.3.2. Mitigated FilittgrMEM one-Wa Tri•s •erDaA 0) 0 a I C 0 0 (0 a 2 • 497 O 0 1- O 0 1- I 0 0. N I O cd O 0 I 1- O 0 N 1- I O 0 O 0 N I 10 Site Preparation O O 0 Site Preparation O O O Site Preparation O Rough Grading O O Rough Grading O O Rough Grading O O O Finishing/Landscaping O O Finishing/Landscaping O O Finishing/Landscaping O) C 0 0 0 O L O O O) C_ 0 0 0 O O O t3 O) C 0 (0 0 O O O O) C_ 0 f0 0 0 Onsite truck Building Construction O O M 0) Building Construction O Lri Building Construction O O O Building Construction Asphalt Paving O O LO Asphalt Paving O O Asphalt Paving 498 1- O 0 _ = 1 0 N I LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- 0 0 _ = 0 0 v OO N LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT I— I- 0 0 r�• 0 0 71;00 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o CI 0 0 LCI o I Asphalt Paving Onsite truck Asphalt Paving 0 I Onsite truck O O) O) O O) CCCCC 0 0 0 c 0 > • 2 Onsite truck CO CV CO CO CZ O 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0) Q) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 c CC c c CO (0 N CO L0 0 0 0 E0 O O C O CCCCC a) 0 a) a) 0 a) • 0 o 0 a) i— i— i— i— i— L L L L L .T .T .T .T .T < < < < < 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies WAIIIMMtrin ,yILIL' Tate] ontrol trate•ies A• •lie• Lc) 7r LLC) w Water unpaved roads twice daily Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph Sweep paved roads once per month 5.5. Architectural Coatings 'arkin• Area oated eria 0 0 0 w 0 a) a • 0 c c m 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 c f0 70, c w O 6 N v1 �.. a) O 0 z 0 0 a) 0 O 0 0 0 0 w 0 c a) " O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 rn N LC) N Architectural Coating 5.6. Dust Mitigation LC) Ln CV LC) 499 Construction Earthmoving Activities cd P cres 'ave. acres; bRIMMIIBITTIIMTZWEILIE MI v atena xporte. (.j% vatena mporte. (.j'; tarr, I I I M O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O M O M N O M O - NO Site Preparation Finishing/Landscaping Rough Grading c 0 c Asphalt Paving 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies NAKCILIMIMISIT �,•yc��:rsnr.�rm requenc per •a ontro trate. ies .. ie. 0 CO Water Exposed Area 5.7. Construction Paving co L Q rea Paved acres; Apartments Low Rise LLL o O O 0 J as as a_ Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 Z 0 } Q ▪ L() o o O O O O 0 0 0 v v v M CM M 0 O 0 O O O • - r O 0 0 N N N o 0 O O 0 0 0 0 N 500 �t 1 11.�Ti1�.'f:I1u�iF1 ! . :. Ve. etatio ..18.1. Land Use han. CD ca 0) E D c0 Liz Final Acres Initial Acres Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Land Use Type .. :. . . V iti•ate• Final Acres Initial Acres Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Land Use Type :ion -lass over T • CO L{i ..18. . . Unmiti.ate• Biomass Cover Type .. :. . Y iti •ate • Biomass Cover Type ..18.2. e • uestratio D a) co 0) E N co Lcj Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) a) E z . . Y iti •ate • Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) E z 501 8. User Changes to Default Data I11tf .. Phase 1 construction would occur from from June 2024 to June 2026. Construction: Construction Phases Construction: Off -Road Equipment The number of construction worker and vendor trips were provided by the Project Applicant. Construction: Trips and VMT LO 10 502 on 580 - Phase 2 Construction Custom Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated 3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated 3.3. Finishing/Landscaping (2027) - Unmitigated 3.4. Finishing/Landscaping (2027) - Mitigated 3.5. Rough Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 503 3.6. Rough Grading (2025) - Mitigated 3.7. Fine Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 3.8. Fine Grading (2025) - Mitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated 3.13. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated 3.14. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated 3.15. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated 3.16. Paving (2027) - Mitigated 3.17. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated 3.18. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated 3.19. Utility Trenching (2025) - Unmitigated 3.20. Utility Trenching (2025) - Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 504 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated a) co 0) E 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated a) 0) 2 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 505 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 8. User Changes to Default Data 506 Information 0 E t .� . 0 LI L LL a U U .7) .E5 co CO r a) To a) iL co ❑ Dublin Fallon 580 - Phase 2 Construction Project Name a) N a) N O co 1 d Construction Start Date Land Use Scale >. co co o O U M Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) 37.70595251758296,-121.84620238933934 Bay Area AQMD San Francisco Bay Area i C C o w v) 0 C O Nu_ 00 ❑ . Q 0 J C.) U Q H W Pacific Gas & Electric Company Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric 2022.1.1.20 1.2. Land Use Types C 0 Q 0 N 0 a) :ui •in. rea Q.L` c 0 N in rmu . pa O O O O O O 507 a) 0 0 co M • LC) N N CO O I O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 N O O N a O- W (i) 0 0 0 0 rn (6 O _c 0_ _1 u) a) < U a a c— n 45 (Li 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector YA[*MlI ItlF 0 a) co Use Advanced Engine Tiers Li) 0 Construction 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m z N 0 0 m H Lf) N 2 0 ❑ cN in 0_ w lf) 2 0_ 1- O 0_ 0 O 2 0_ w O_ 2 0_ 0 Cn 0 0 X 0 z 0 0 CC 0 00 1 I N N N N O O 1 I CO CO N N O O LC) Lf) O CO Ln Ln I Lf) Ln I LC) LC) CO CO CO M Lfj Lf) O CO CO 0) I I I I I I I I LO 6) 0 v v N O o O 7 0 0 O) L• N N N N CO CO LO o CO M CO`') LLi LC) 0 0 O O LC) LC) co O N N 1 1 1 1 • LO 0) M C) 0) co. CO CO o 0) O) O O M M • O- co O O) Ln LC) 0 0 O O co co co • co N Ch O 1" v rn Lf) Lf) CO a) a) a) m a c508 N 7 C 'J 0 N C N C ... a T >@`° 0) 0") CO CO 0 0 O 0 M CO a) N 0 0 CO• 0 0 N ONO M co co CO N N LL) N 4 I Lf) N N I co co co;o o co I I c; c; co 0o co; O I I O O I CO N- 0 0 CfDLO cf) O O 0M O 0 O O CD CO • O o CO O O 0 0 M CO O N V O 0) 0 0 0) COM O O M O 0 O co O O 0 O O O) LO LC) 0 0 N N O O • O I I I 0) 0) O O I I (0 N c CC) OD O 0 co (fl o O 4 N E c a U(+3 .-. X c l) c LO O 0) O 0 V OM o CO O O co CO Lf) U E c a) 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T E ou) X 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N CO M Lf) CO N N 0 0 O O O - I O O - O I O O CO CO W CO co in co N N r-- LC) N Lf) N N I LC) CO 0) (0 CO N- CO N LL) N 4 M 0 CO L0 CO N- h r— I N 0 Lf) N N I I I I I I I I I I • O O I N O co; I O O L0 f- - N N- r— 0 in M co; O I O O I O O oO O I CO O O M I- 7 O 0 OZ.) CO CO f� N I� O O N O O I� 0 0) CO V O O I O O CO CO 0 NO M O O I O N 0 CO 1" 0) 0) 0 0) CO V CO (fl CO V 0 O I — O O I co; 0 O O O I O O O I O O Lf) Lf) N CO LO N I CO 0) 0 O (0 COCO 0 0 O I� O O h V I� M Lf) O I O O I co; O 0 0) LO (0 N- �, W X LC) CO N- [2 >, L) CO 509 N N N = c LO N N N a) = N N 0 0 0 0 j 2 0 0 0 > Q 0 0 N CO O N CON CO N 0 COLO CO O 0 CO CO CO 4 I N LC) N- 0) ONO N LC) N N CO CN • I N M LC) LC) 0 0 _ O _ O O O O O O 1 v O v CO O O O O O O O O N N CO O N COCO N CO N- CO N O N CO O N M - ' 0) t r O O O O O O LC) O _ O O O O O O O V 0) LC) CO CO - 0 O 0 O O O O CO . CO LO N N O O O O O co co 4 O O O O O O O ON O O O O O O O LO LC) 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O v v v LO h O) N- I� N O CO• I � � N CO 0) r-- co co 4 O Lf) N O O co O) co h O O 0o 4 O O O (TS C LC) CO N- C O < 0 0 N0 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 0 N Z H N 0 N 0 0 co Z N 0 0 no H N 0 0 LC) ("Ni 0 w N 0 1- O 2 0 0 O 0 w 0 N 0 Cn 0 0 X 0 Z C9 0 a) CTS 0 cn LC) O LO LC) N- CO LC) LC) r CO r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I v O LC) CO 0) CO CO f— CO N N 4 I co co 0) CO N- CO N LC) N 4 LO CO CO O O O O O O 0)CO LO CO N CO r- LO CO N N 1— 1— 00 I N CO CO LO CO 0) CO LO LC) N N N CO M r- N V N- CO I N M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO — CO r CO CO 0) Lf) LC) O O O O O O I — O - O O O O I O O O O r CO O O O O O O O I O O Ln O O O� O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O - M CO O) CO CO CO CO 0) O) V CO CO LC) r CO CO O N O O O O M O O O O I O O - CO (O 0) CO CO 0 0 CO CO N- O O I M O O o O O I O O LC) O O r N- O 4 N M O ▪ O O r O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I V O LO LO 0 0 LC) N V LC) N N N r O O O O O O O O O O O O O I LC) LC) N N N cri CO O) LC) d CO v • 0) O LC) co O) 00 h CO N N CO 0 N M I t N N O O I O O N N lf) CO O O• N- COCOCON COO O O CO O O O O O 4 I O O a) 0) in (o > X co (o 0 >. co (o co CO 510 N N N C (SS N N N a) = N N N N N O NO N Q> O N O <>rz 0 N O 0 < 0 O N 0 0 O 0 O 1 1 1 0 1 M 1 O 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H 0 0 N 0 0 z N 0 0 H N a 0 LO N 2 a w N a 1- d 0 O d w co a N 0 0 0 x 0 z 0 0 c 0 0 0 J Ln 0 ✓ o Q o o CD I 1 0 1 0 1 I � 1 o I 0CD 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 LC) O) O O 0 I I Ln I O I M I O LC) CS) o 0 0 0 I I Lri I O 1 1 M 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 C• O O 1 O 0 O O O CO O o o CO co O 0 1 O N I- O • CO O I I O 1 I O o o I f-- O Cc) O I I I O I I I o O I N O I- O I f O O I O LO O LC) O 0CD 1 1 O 1 O I 1 O M co co I I N I O I - I o rn 0 0 0 I I M I co O I 1 N I CD O I h 0 CO 0 I co O I 1 o I o 1 E E. E E c m o m o 0 0 E o f LL - E o `m o' o f w •`6 E m �o X CC. 0 0 : X ct. 0 0 : Y D• E 511 O 0 w� o w 0�� O c� o� Q am o w � 2 2 0 .0�. Q 0 0 co 10 O I I 71- 0 6) 0 • N 0 CO CD 00 CD N O I O O O N 0 0 10 0 O o o I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o O O v v O 1 OV OV O 1 v0 OV o L 10 10 L 10 CO 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o O o 0 o O o v I o 1 I v v o 1 1 v v o 1 v v o co. 0 CO CO 0 • 0 0 I,- 0 O I I CO71- O N O O O O CO CO CD 71- CD V CO O N ▪ O O O O I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I O LC) LO 0 00 O O O O O o O O O - O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O V O I V V O I v V O LO 0 0 0 0 71- O _ O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O I O O 1 1 O V O 1 1 v V O 1 v V o LO L 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD O 0 CD0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 1 1 O V O I 1 O V O I O V O 10 10 10 10 O O O 0 CO O 0 0 0 O 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I o 0 o I V V o I v v o 10 10 10 L) 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 I o o 1 I o 0 o I 1 v v o 1 v v o CO 10 LO o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 o 1 o 1 1 o v o 1 1 o v o 1 o v o 10 LO 10 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O O O o O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O I I O V O O V O I O V 0 In In to O 0 O 0 O) 0 - 0 0 0 0 O O O 1 1 O O O O OV O I VV OV O 10 10 10 LO 0 0 O O V O co 0 0 O 0 0 O V O O O O O O O O O o O 1 O 1 1 O O O 1 1 v V O 1 V V O CO 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 1 1 O v o I 1 v v O 1 v v o -6 E ▪ E C a5 0 E Li •c6 E a)0 a5 o c °) `m • a c • To 45 o c cr al o c L .0 D. 0 aa) as ca c 2 > .a 0 aac ) c• caa c 0 aci CCS o w 0 2 2 0 0 Ow= 0 < 0 > z< >_ 3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 m 0 N 2 a w o_ 2 a N 0 0 0 X 0 Z 0 0 c 0 0 0 J 512 LC) O O O N CO O O O O O O O O O LC) O N LO O N LC) O O O O O O O O LC) O O O LO O O M c) CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O CO O O O O O O co O N O O CO O O N O N O co O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V LC) CO N LC) O O O V LC) O O O V M O co co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O LC) LC) a) C 0 N E c 0 (/) C 0 C 0 X co N O T < 0 LO O Q • C Ow CD C U 0 To c C 0 0 513 N O N O I O O O m (Ns 0 0 LC) Ln O CD I I O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 I 0V 0V O I 0v V0 0 LO LO o O 0 0 0 0 o v v o LO LO LO LC) O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v o I v v o V N O N O I O O O co Co 00 V N O I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 O o O 0 o O 0 0 O 0V O I 0V 0V O I 0V V0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O CI0 CD CD 0 0 0V O I 0V 0V O I 0V V0 O 10 co Lfl 0 0 0 0 O CS O 0 0 O O 0V O I O 0V O I O VV O LO LC) 10 LO O O O 0 CDO O o O O 0 O O O I 0v 0V O I 0v 0v O LO LO LO L1) O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O o CS CD 0 O O O I 0v 0v O I 0v 0v O '0 a) co co 10 CO 0 0 0o _0) 0 ov 0 I I 0 ov 0 I 0 vo 0 E C co co Lf) D 0 0 0 o0 0O 0O 1 0 0v o I o 0v o I o v o N O co co LO N 0 0 0 rn O o o 0 0 o o 0 0 o I 0 v 0 I 0v v 0 c .Q Co LO LO LC) LO V r, 0 0 0 O 0 0 o cn 0 0 o I ov ov o I ov ov o Cl J co 0 0 0 0 0) N O o CD CDo CD o 0 0 0v o I ov ov o I ov vv 0 C m `m o a' 0 a) 0 v' m 0 0 °' L L 8O c 7 = C a7 a) .>' O O Ccei CO 0 <0 > = a > = Cr) Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 CO Z N 0 0 H N N 0- 0 O d N 0 O 0 x 0 Z C7 0 0 0 0 J O I 0 I 0 Ln O I 0 I 0 L0 0 I O N O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O 0 I 0 r- I 0 I 0 0 I I 0 I 0 c E c o m a) E o E tL .2 E a) crt. ct 0o ow 022 C __.- 514 O LL) O O a) O • L4 N N O LC) O O O V a) CO a) co O V LO 0 O O V LC) O O O V a) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V LO LC) LC) O O O V LC) O O O V a) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) Lf) 0 O O O O O O V v O LO LO 0 O O O O O O V v O - h O M L(j O CO N 0 ✓ 0 M � O CO N O LC) 0 N 0 O O O O V O Lfl O N O O O O O O V O Lfl O O O O O O O V O CO O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O L() O O O O O O O O V O Lf) O O O O O O O V O V O CO 0 0 O O O N M 0 0 0 0 O O O LC) O M O O O O O O V O a) O <0 E. TO a) E � O O w a) c 0 U w To c c c -o E Q O w a) N Y c 0 .cL 515 CNO O 0")N 0 O I O O O a) N 0 0 LO LC) O CO CD - I O I CO ▪ Lf) o 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 ✓ O I v v O L0 LC) LC) 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 ✓ 0 1 v v 0 LO 0 CO CO 0 L O I O O O L O CON 0 O O O O L0 LC) LO O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I v V O LC) LC) 10 O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O ✓ O I v v O LC) LC) 0CD 0 O O O o O ✓ O I O V O LC) LC) LC) O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O I v v O L LO LO O O 0 O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I v v O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O ✓ O I O v O LC) LC) O 0 O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I O V O LC) LC) LC) O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O 1 v v O Ln Ln LO o 0 O o O O O O 0 0 0 0 ✓ 0 I v v 0 LLj LLj LO o 0 0 o O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 ✓ o I v v o a) To a) 7 Y - C c = c `o c = 0> = < > _ 3.4. Finishing/Landscaping (2027) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m H N 0 to N 0- 0 O d N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 J Ln O 0 0 I 0 I o I Ln 0 Ln O o O I o I V I I 1 1 I I 1 I I Ln 0 N O O O O O O I o O O O O I I O O I I O Ln O C CD O I O I LC) O N CD O O O O O O O O O O I 1 V O O O O I O O I I O LC) 0 N 0 O O I O I O I O O 0 O) I I ao • I O I O I 0 ▪ I 0 I o O I I o 1 o I 1 o I ▪ E c c E c 0 o m -o 0 o m m oQ L_.13E o m co U_.13E n Ect n > 'in o = c CO a) — c ) 45> 0 0c� ow 022 0 0 <0 ow 022 516 O O O LC) O O O rn O Cfl co N O r CO O F N O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) c 0 U w To c c LC) LC) LC) O O O V LC) O O O V CA O O O O N Q Ow O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N c 0 U s- 0 4) E LO LC) 0 0 O O O O O V v O LC) O O O O O O O V v O h O O CO N 0 cri N- O 0) N O I I I O N O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O V Lfl O O O V O O O O O CO 0 O O O O O O CO 0 0 0 O O O O LC) O O O O O O O O V O LC) O O C7 O O O O O V O M O O O O O N Cc) O O 0 O O O O LC) O M O O O O O O V O O) c CO 2 X co -- o N U) T < LC) LO LC) LC) O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O o O O O V V O I v v O LO LO LO 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O V v O I v v O COO LO 0 CON O O I O O O (3) LC) O CO CO 0 CO LC) O h N O V A O I O O O LC) LC) LC) LO O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O V V O I v V O O O LC) O O O V LC) O O O V O O O O O O Lf) O O O V O O O LC) 0 O 0 V LC) 0 0 O V O O O O O O LC) LO LC) LO 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O V v O I v v O LC) LC) LC) LC) 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O V V O I v v O LC) Lfl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O I O V O L() LC) O 0 O O O O C7 O O O O O O O O V O I O V O LO LC) LO 0 0 0 N 0O O P O O O O O O O O v O I v v O LC) LC co Li) 0 O O 0 O O o O O o O O O O O O V v O I v v O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O V V O I v v O Y O 0 7 Y O O LO 7 c 0 7 = a > _ LC) LC) LC) 0 a--r E N 0 N 0) 0) NO Ld_ Lci 517 M CN N 0 0 0 N O I I M I O I I O Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 00 Z CV 0 0 m 0_ w L N 2 a 1- O d 0 co 0_ w 0 0- 0 0 0 X 0 Z 0 ct 0 0 0 J 10 10 0 0 N O O O O I I O I O 1 1 v 1 O I v I O I 10 0 N_ 0 0 O 0 I I O I O 1 1 O 1 O I v 1 O 1 O 0') 0 O O h O ) N O I I M I O 1 10 1 O O 10 0 O 0 r� 0 N O I I M I O 1 10 I O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 0 CO 0 - CO 1 1 CO O O 1 1 O O O O O O 0 (0 0 M 0 I I O I I O O I O O O 0 00 O O I 1 O O 0 1 0 I O I I O N O I I O O O I O O O 0 I I 1 N o 1 1co O O 1 O O O 0 0 1 1 0 1 o I o 1 o 10 10 0 0 0) O O 0 O 0 1 I 1 0 1 1 v 1 0 I v 0 1 0 1 CO O O O co 0 I r O I I N I O I O O N 0 M 0 0 0 N O I I N I O O I O 10 1.0 CO 1 I 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 10 I 0 1 E c e. E c e. E c Do O N O N D 4) O m E ° Q `g E °) c� ° E �i `� E m o o f u .m E m m T E X N 1' >, X T 1Y. N yi 7 Et. N y C 0u ow 022 o L 05 Q0 ow 022 0 < Ow 022 0 " 0 518 a) 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 00 I o 0 0v v LO 10 0 0 0 0 O O O V V O 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 1 v v O 1 v v CO CO 0 CO O 0) N O N O M O I O O O CO CO 0 M CO O COrV O N LO N O V M O I O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 00 LO 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O OV O OO V V I OO O v V O 0 0 0 00 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O OV O OO V V I OO O v V O 10 (0 10 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 I O O O O I O O 10 10 L 10 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 00 1 v v 0 LO LO LO C0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O O O OV OV O 1 Ov Ov O LO (0 LO 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O I 0 0 0 1 0 0V 0 1 0 0v 0 10 LC) 0 0 0 O o O O 0 O O 0 O I O O O O I O O O O) O 1 O O O O O LO LO L) 0 O 0 N O O 0 Q O 1 O Ov O I Ov Ov O 10 10 10 10 0 O 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 v V 0 1 V V 0 LO 0 0 0 0 N O O 0 0 0 O O O I 0 O O Iv vO E co cTo cn� U) 0 'Cr) 0 m (0 0 0 C 7 .�' C fS5 N .>' _C C _C 7 > = o � <0 > = < > _ 3.6. Rough Grading (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 z N 0 0 0 10 N a w 10 N a 0 O a w 0 0- 0 C/) 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 J I 0 N_ I O O I N O) N O 1 1 CO CO m 0 1 1 O r O N CO I I I N 0 I 0 M I O cc) N O I I O I C E C -0 a) O N O E LL •13 E Ul ..-' E N ry •7 N > 0 0o ow 022 519 O O O O LO CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V O O O) co co O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V O O N N O CO O O CO CO co O co co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V LC) L() LC) O O O V LC) O O O V O O O O co O O co O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO LC) 0 0 O O O O O O V v O LC) 0 0 O O O O O V v O CO CO 0 C`i CO 71- N O CO CO 0 M CO ✓ N O LC) O _ O O O O O O V O LC) O _ O O O O O O V O LO O O O O O O O v O O O ▪ 0 0 O O O LC) 0 O O O o O O O v O LC) O O O O O O O v O O) O 0 0 O O O LC) 0 (N O O 0 O 0 O v O «) LC) CO c 0 T C o X as a) O T < Q � O O w a> c 0 To c Q � O O w 0 c 0 cn O c co 2 T C o X O a) O T < 520 CO CO N 0 CO01 O V M O I O O O a) N 0 0 Cn V) Cn LC, O o O 0 O O 0 O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v O I v v O LC) Cn Cn Cn O O O o 0 0 0 O o 0 O O O O O O v v O I v v O CO 71- O 1 O M O I O O O CO V O O) N 0 f-- O 1 Cn O V M O I O O O (0 Cn Cn Cn 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O v v O I v v O (0 Ln LC) CC) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 CD CD O O O O O O O V V O I V V 0 Cf) Cn 0 0 c)O c) c)O 0 O O O 0 O O O V O I O V O LC) Cn Cn Cn 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 v v O I v v O Cn Cn Cn C0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O o O O O O O O v v d 1 v v O Cfl Cf) O O 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O O 0 O 0 v 0 1 0 v 0 0 0 O0 O (6 0O O O 0 O O 0) O v O I O v O '' E 0 0 LC)D N CD O 0 O O O O O O 0 O v O I v v O Cn Cn Cn 10 0 O 0 o O O O O o 0 O O O O O O v v O I v v O 10 10 11) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CD o O O O O O O V V O I V V O Y Q E ( Y O CT c 7 c LO c 7 2 Q > 2 3.7. Fine Grading (2025) Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z CV O 0 m H d w N a 1- d 0 O d w a N 0 C1) O 0 x 0 Z 0 O 0 U 0 J CV CV 00 00 I 00 00 N O N O I I O O I O O O O) N O I N 0 I I 1 I 1 I I I co co co c;M O I O O c 0 I I Ico O I 0) co I I 0 C) O O 0 O) 0 O CO O O I O 0 CO O O O I I N O I N O o L 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 co I O O I O 0 00 0 I O CO 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 N O N O c,') O C) I I O I O 1 0 C E C N O N a) � E O rY Q w •-- � O Q c Lf).as D g s m m 0 c L 'E c s 0 0CD Ow 022 0.7. 0� Ow Dust From — 0 O O 0 O 0 521 o co O I O I N 1 O I I co O0. r� N O 1 N LC) LC) O O O O O O I O I I O I co O O O o I O I O I v I O I I co co O O O O O O O V V O LO LO 0 0 O O O O O O V V O co O LC) O coCo O Ico O I N O I N O I CO I � I co Co O C7 CO O V N 0 LC) LC) Lf) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V V O V LO LC) LC) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V V O I V 1 1 1 I I I I 1 11 I I I I I I I I I In LC) LC) 0 0 0 CO 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O I O O 1 O O O 1 I O V O 1 O V O 1 V LC) LC) LC) 0 0 0 CO 0 O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O I O O I O O I O V O I O V O I V co LO LC) LO 0 0 V co O co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O I O I O I O I I O V O I O V O I O In 0 LC) f� 0 Cr)O 'Cr 0 V 0 O 0 — 0 0 0 0 O O O O O co O O O O I O O O I I O O O I O O O I V co co f� O co O O O I O O O 1 O O 1 O O O I O O OV co LC) 0 0 LC) O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O I O 1 O 1 I O V O I O V O I O LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I 1 O O O O O O O O I O V O 1 O V O I O I O I O O I I O O O I O O O I O LC) O O 0 CO O COO N M 0 O 7r. N O O O O O co O O I O O I O O O I O O O I V co co co O O O V O O N O 0 N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 1 O I O I O I O 1 I O V O I O V O I v E E C C E C o f Li 72 E m m o f Li — E m m E — `m `o °) o o) a' a.) La > .fl N N 7 .fl N > E X '6 = > X i -0 LB >, 522 7 n > n L C CO O C L _� a) N .� c N > L6 O < 0 o w 0 o .� < O W 0 O 0 (n > 2 0 > 2 < 0 CMO O N O O I O O a) N 0 0 O O N I O N I O Lf) o 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O I v v O LO LO LO 0 o 0 O 0 0 0 O O o O O O v O 1 v v O CD CO 0 N 0 o I O o 0 CD N- CO 0 N O O 1 O O O Lc) LO Li) o 0 0 O O O o O O O O O O V O I v V O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 V O I V V O Lf) Lf) O 0 O O O 0 O o O o O V O I O V O LO LO Li) O O O O 0 0.0.0 O O O O O v O 1 v v O Lf) LO 10 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O v 0 1 v v 0 0 0 O o O o O 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 1 o v o Lf) LC) 0 0 0 CD o 0 O o O o O V O I O V O LO LO Li) O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O v O 1 v v O lf) Lf) LC) o 0 O o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 1 v v 0 Lf) 10 LC) 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 V o 1 v v 0 0 a) 7 To Y - C c = c `o c c > z < > z 3.8. Fine Grading (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m z N 0 0 m H N 0 to N 0- 0 O 0_ N 0 f1) 0 0 x 0 z 0 0 0 U 0 J I 0 I o 0 I o N O N_ O I 0 1 O 0 1 O O O CD I N I O c.1 1 O O fA o Ln O N 1 o N 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 CD CO O COO 0 O 1 1 O C`) O O I I O CO O CO O O 1 O O I O CO CO 0 CO CO O N O O N O O O Co O I I N O 1 N o CO O CO O I 0 1 0 0 1 0 M O M O I 1 O 1 O O I O Co O Co O I I 1 O 1 O co o co o 1 I o 1 o I o 1 0 E ' E E ' a) `3 °� o m m o o—ff,m a)E o f l_ •E a . o f l_ .= E a) 0 CC) ow 022 0 0 ow 022 0 Ln 10 N 523 rn I � I o co O a' O I o rn o 0 N o r— co O r� o 71- • N O N LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O O O O O O O O O I O I v I O I I v� IO I LC) LC) LO O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O I CD 0 ov I O I ov ov O I LC) LC) LC) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O V v O I v Lo LC) LC) O O O O O O O O O O O V v O I v co O Lf) O co co O N h O I O I N O I I criN0. O I N O I N O LC) O co co O N I O I N I O I I N O I 0. N O I N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LC) LC) i) LC) LC) O co 0 O N- 0 _ O 0 _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I v O O I v O O I O V O I O V O I V LC) LC) LC) 0 0 0 CO 0 O • O O - O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O I I O O I I O O I I O V O I O V O I v LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) Lc) O O O O O O O O O N I O O I O I o O O O O O O O N ✓ I I O V O I O V O I O LC) LC) LC) O O O O N- O O co V o V o O O — O O O O O O co O co O o I v O O I v O O I I O O O I O O O I V LC) O f— O co o O O I O O I O I O O O I o O O O O v LC) LC) LC) Lo O O O O O o O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O I V I O I V I O I I O V O I O V O I O LC) LC) LC) LC) O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O I O O O O O O O O I I I O V O I O V O I O O I Oo O I O O O I O O O I O LC) 0 N_ 0 N 0 COO N C) 0 O I O I O O I O O O I O O O I O o v LC) O N 0 O I O I O I -0 0) ▪ E - -o a▪ ) O O E LL N E a) (B O E wL <0 ow o»o< o Dust From LC) LC) LC) 0 0 0 0 N O 0 N O O O O I I O OV O I O VV I VO O E. 0) N '@ E • a) E '5 O C' U) O 0) N > TE � o D _ � L 0 _ CD.T - 524 �0 o• w 0 0o) > = CO ' > = <0 COO O N O - O I O O O a) N 0 0 CO O O co I� N o O 1 Ln Ln Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O ✓ O I v v O LO LO LO 0 o 0 O 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 ✓ o 1 v v o CD CO - 0 N 0 - o I O o 0 CD CO 0 N O O I O O O LO Ln 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I v V O Ln Lf) Ln O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O ✓ O I v v O Lc) Li) O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O ✓ O I O V O LO LO LO O O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O ✓ O I v v O Ln Ln In O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ✓ O I v v O Ln 10 O o O o O O O O 0 0 0 0 ✓ o I o v o Ln Li) 0 0 O o o O O O O O ✓ O I O V O LO LO LC) 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O ✓ O 1 v v O Ln Ln LC) o 0 0 0 0 O o O 0 0 0 0 ✓ o I v v o Lf) Lf) 10 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 ✓ o I v v o a) To a) 7 Y - C c = C o c> 2 < > 2 3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 H N 0 to N 0- W Ln 0_ 0 O d N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 J Lc) 10 O O N 0 O O 0 I I O O O I Ln O I I 0 o o 0 1 0 co O) O O Lf) N O C) o 1 Ln 00 rn O O I L I I N O coO I 1 I I I I I I I I V O Oco O I I O O O O O 0 0 I 1 1 1 O 1 1 O 1 I 00 CD CO I I O • O O O O I I ICC) CD O 0 I O O O O O I I I O I O I I 1 I o • 0 1 0 0 1 0 Ln Ln O 0 N O O O O I I I O O O I v CO 0 0 CO I I I O co O l o I Icd0 ▪ 0 1 0 I I o • 0 o 0 t o as 0 as m ID ci▪ ) E 8 0 Q m m 0 a m t6 0 Q X — x Q. : o. : _1 = ct. 525 a) . () C 7 0 ocn 0 2 Ow O" <0 Ow 0" Q Ow O I I N M. I- O O) M O • O C) 0 M O Ln N O a) N 0 0 LO L0 L0 L) 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 CD CD CD 1 O O O OV OV O OV O 0 O Li) LO Li) LO O 0 O O 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 1 ov ov o ov V o O I I N O Sr 6) O O O O c O - co O O I M O Lf) N O O - M O 6) 0) Oo O O I N O 1 0 `r O L0 ▪ N 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I Ln LO LO o 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 O O O O 1 O OV O V OV O Lf) LC) LO O 0 0 O CO O - O O 0 O O O I I O O O O O OV O V OV O Lf) Ln Ln 0 0 0 O • O O O I I O VO O I O OV O O OV O Li) Li) O 0 0 LCD 0 CO 0 0 0 0 O 1 1 O O O 1 O OV O O OV O O O O LO t 0 M 0 0 0 0 O I I O O O I O OV O O OV O LCD Lf) Lf) O O O o O 0 O O O O O O O O O I I O O O I 0 O O O O O LO Lf) Ln 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O O 0 O O I I O VO O I O O O O OV O L() O 0 N I- CD CO0 N 0 0 O 1 1 CDO O O O O O OV O LC) LO O O 0 O) N- O N 0 0 0 0 O 1 1 1 O O O 1 O O OV O O V O LCD Lf) LCD LCD O O O O 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 1 O VV 1 O OV O OV O OV O B if)E U) • O C) (O C To 0 • O m ci 0w 0 ❑Snm co 05 > _ <0 > = < > 3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 U CO z N 0 0 m H O d 2 Sl w O a N 0 Sn 0 0 X 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 1 1 a) 1 >. E X c m . 2 0 ❑ u 526 CO o O CO w o C) N- O 71- co CV - co O I LC) O I I (N — O I M ' O LL) LL) in LL) O O O O N O O O O O N CDo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O I V O I I O O O I V V O Lf) Lf) Ln O O O 0 0 0 O O CD O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O I O O V O I O O O I V V O co O O O Ln O M O 6) O 0 N O I co II O I I N O co- O co c.1 O I co O I 71- O I I N O OM ' O I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ln Ln O O O O O (O o O o O co O O O co co O O O O O O I O O I V O I I O O O I V O LLD 0 0 O O (0 O O O O I I O I I O I O O O I o Ov LLi Ln LC) O O O V O O O O O O O O0 O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O V O I I O V O O V O LC) Ln 0 O O O 0 O Ln O coO O O O O O O O N O O O O O I O O 1 O O I V O I 1 1 O O O I O V O Ln O O O O Ln O M O 0 CD N CD 0 O I I O I I O I I O O O I O ov LLD LC) LLi O O O 71- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I V O I I O V O O V O LLi LLi LLD LL) O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O V O I V O I I O V O O V O M O co0 co O O 0 O 0 I O I O I O O I I O O O O O co O (O O LD O 6) I- O N 0 CDO N O O O O O O CD CD N O I O O I O O I I O O O I O O O LC) LLD O O cc) o co o O co o O o N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O I O O 1 O O I O O I 1 1 O V O I O V O C C C N N -13 0 ID 0 o f m co o f m m o f m m a) o °' °) m `o °) o ow o ¢o ow o ¢ ow o 0 ova_ 8 2 > _ ¢o > _ Ln Ln Ln 527 O CO O N- 0) O N O Cv N 0 0 Lr) co - cc N O I N O O CN N Lf) Lf) 0 0 O O I O O o ✓ v O LO Lf) 0 O O O 0 I 0 0 0 ✓ v o O - CO O Lfl N in in O O O O I O O O ✓ v O Lf) LO 0 0 O O 0 I O O o ✓ v LO O O Q O O O O V 0 Lf) O _ O O I O O O O V O U) O _ O O I O O O O v O LC) O O O O o 0 0 O v 0 Lf) O O Q o O O O V 0 Lf) O N Q O 0 O O O V O LC) LO O 0 O O I 0 0 0 ✓ v O Lf) LC) 0 0 0 O I 0 0 0 ✓ v 0 Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 H L() N 2 d a Lf) N 2 11 w N 2 0 H O d 0 O 2 d w 0 a N 0 f0 O 0 X 0 Z (7 0 CC 0 0 0 J Lf) 0 0 I O O I O O O O OV o 0CD I o o I 0 - 0 0 0 0 ti N Cr) 01 M N O I N O O N h N - cc N O I c.1 O O M N I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I co O • O I O O O O O O O O I I O I I O I O CO 00 O • O I O O O O I O N I co cc co O O I O O O O I O O O O I I I O I I O I O I I I Ico co O 0 I 0 0 o 0 1 0 in 0 N O N 0 N 0 O I I O O 1 O O O O OV co O M O N O Co I I o O O - o rn o rn o Ln o co I I • O I O O 4 1 N CO 0 CO 0 v 0 CO I I 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 10 - Q c c 0 • a a E o Q m o Q m • o Q m m o Q • T X tY Y T X i Y T cc o C ct. 52H (n E CO 7 U) U c co 7 0 U > 7 0 V c 7 C N 7 CS C i CO Cr C i > N Cr C M C CS 0 0co Ow O.� o Ow O.. <o Ow Ow. < Ow 0 0 I I co co o I N O O h O N O O CO N O V N- 0 W (0 0 N O I 0) O N 0 ai N 0 0 LC) Lf) 0 0 0 N CDN CDCDO 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 1 1 0 0 O 1 O O 0 1 O 0 0 1 V V O O 0 I 0 0 I I co 0 O O 0 o O v 0 0 LO O C) O N O L0 L0 LO Li) O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 v v o I v v o CO c) N O O LO O N L0 O coN- M O W 1 co O I o-)O N O O O O O LC) CD N Lf) 0 Lo c) � M (xi cri O N O I N O I O) O N 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L0 0 O CO 0 CO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 1 1 O 0 O 1 O O 0 1 O O O 1 O V O O O O co O co O O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O 1 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 O 0 O 1 O V O LL) LO L() Ls-) O O O O O O O O 0 O coO O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 1 1 0 V 0 1 0 V 0 1 0 V 0 1 0 V 0 O O 0 LO V 0 LO V 0 CO CO 0 COO 0 O N O O N 0 O N- O O O 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 O 1 0 O 0 1 O 0 0 I 0 V O LO 0 O LO O LC) O CO N O M O 0 O N O 0 N O O N- 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O I O O O I O O O O V O Lo L0 Lo co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 O o 0 O o 1 1 o v o 1 o v o 1 o v o 1 o v o co co Ln Ln 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 1 1 0 V 0 1 0 V 0 1 0 V 0 1 0 V 0 O 6) I,- 0 LO r- O O LO O 04 O O O O 0) 0 CD CD CO CD CDO O I O O I O O 0 I O O 0 0 0 O 0 o CO 0 0 N 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 o I o 0 o I o 0 o I o 0 o o 0 0 O 0 I 10 Lo co 0 0 0 0 rn 0 o rn 0 o c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o 1 o v o 1 o v o 1 o v o a)m E `0 `0 °) a) 0 a) c� 0 0 0) m `0 0 a) c L 0 0. 0 0 8 0 0 m > :a 0 c 0 a) as0.7, 0 0& > = 0 > _ <0 > = < > 3.12. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 H O 2 0 0 O 2 0 N 0 0 0 0 Z C7 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 529 LC) O N O O LO N O O O O O 10 CO N N O O O O O O 0 0 O O N O O M CO O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O V O O V O O O O N O O CO M O N CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N_ hs- M O O M O O M O O N O O N O CC) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 O 0 O V O 0 CO W CO CO N O 0 O O O O O O Ln 0 O O V O c0 CO N O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O 0 0 O O O 10 O O ✓ O O LO - O Ln M ▪ O N - O LC) CO- Q N ' O CO 0 O 0 0 O O O (O O O O O O O O Lfl O O O O O O O V O Ln O N 0 0 O O O LO t O N O 0 O O O Lr) O O O O O O O O v O Ln O O O O O O O V O O I� O O O 0 • O O (0 CO 0 O O O O O Lf) O O O O O O O O v O co o�� c 0 0 U C Q O w c 0 O) @ T < 0 a) N O 0 (6 c c a) Cfl O O �L 0 Y O o Q) c m 2 530 N O N 0) O CO N O O O CaO) O O I N O a) N 0 0 LC) N O Li) LC) 0 0 N O O O 0 O I O O O I O O O 1 OV O O Ln LI) LO LI) O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 I o 0 o 0v o 1 0v o CO 0" N O LI) 0 N Li) 0 O (h (C.cc; cri O 0) O I N O O LO O N L() 0 N O I 0) O I N O I I I I I I I I I I I Ln O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O V O Ln 0 CO O O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O I O V O L() Ln L() 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O VO O O OV O I O VV O LO V 0 N O O O O O Ln O N O 0 O O O LO 0 CO_CO 0 COO 0 O O 0 O O I O O O 1 O V O Lf) O CO N O M CD O O O 0 O O O O O I O V O L() '4) LO 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 I o 0V o I o o I o 0 L() O O O O o O O 0 O O 0 O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O 0o (- o O O 0 0 0 LO 1- 0 0 0 0 o 0 o I o 0 0 L() Ln LO 0 0 0 rn 0 O co 0 O 0 0 O OV O O OV O I O VV O a) _ a) O O a) O C (0 a) O C , Q) X - 'O �+ - 'p 7 Y C (0 Q C m— LO C 7 C C 7 o 2 Q 2 Q 2 3.13. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 H N d 0 N 0- H O 0 0 O d N 0 O 0 X 0 Z C7 0 I I0 0 O O o_ o I o o co c.1 O n N O Ln O 0) I O 0 0 N O)co O I I O O rn O I 0 0 0 0 O o C N (0 a) rt.>. E X ,Q � Y T U X C _3. m h o- C o C as 0 0 cn � O w 0 w a 2 531 N O O O O O) M N co O O O O O O d7 W N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) O O co @ T < 0 LC) O O O V N O O O LC) O O CO O M O Q • Ow O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N c 0 a) c c O N Cr) LC) O 0 O V O O) O O) M O O CO O M O O Ln 0 O O V O CO O 0 O Q ct O w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I) c 0 U w 0 COLC) LO O N N O - N O O O O O O O LC) O O - O O O O V O O 0 O N O N N O o co O 10 N O N N O (O O O O O O O O (O O O O O O O O Lfl O O O O O O O V O LO V 0 N O O O O O LC) O N O 0 O O O LC) O O O O O O O O v O Ls) O O O O 0 O O O v O - I,- 0 O O O • O O CO LO 0 O O O O O LC) O C) O O 0 O O O v O ›; co E X co LO 0 COM N N O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O M N O N N O I I I CO O O 0 0 O O O co O O O O O O O LC) 0 O O O O O O v O Ln V O N O O O O O LO d O N O 0 O O O LC) O O O O o O O O v O LO 0 O O O O O O v O O f� 0 O) O O O O CO CO 0 O O O O O LO O 00 O O O O O O v O O c as 2 a) O) < O Lc) co LC) LC) O O O O O O ✓ v LC) LC) O 0 O O O O ✓ v O co • O) LO N O CO 4 O) LC) N I I LC) O _ O O O V LC) O _ O O O V LC) O O � O O V O O O O O co O O O O LC) O O O O O V LC) O O Q O O V O N N O O O N O O O O LC) O N O O O O V Y O O LC) LC) O M 532 0 O Co V O O O O O O Lf) aJ N 0 O O N O I (f) O I co co 0 0 0 o O O O O O v v O co co 0 0 0 0 O O O O O v v O O co O O a> O O O 4 O LO O O O 0 0 O O O O O v v O Lf) LO O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O V V O O O O O O O O O O O O V O 10 O 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 I 0 v 0 10 0 O o O o O o 0 0 v 0 10 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 10 O O O o O O O O O O O V O 10 O O O O O O O O O o v o up 0 o o O O O O O I V O O co co o O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O V V 0 C(6 U) O L c 0 C 2 3.14. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m 0 LO N 2 a w N a 1- O d 0 O w a N 0 0 0 x 0 Z C9 0 co 0 N O N O O O I I O O 1 O O 1 V O I O O 0 0 N O O O I O O I O O I 0) O CO O I O O CO O 1 N O r- M O O N O I 10 O I M O O N O I io O I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I O 0 0 I I O O I O O I O O I O O 0 I I O I I O I I O I 10 V O V O O 1 O O I O O I O O I co co CD CD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 I O O O 0 1 0 1 1 0 I 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 I I 10 0 0 0 O O 1 O O I O O I CO O M O O O I 1 0 1 0 1 O I N O 1 N O 1 O O I CO O CO O L() 0 I I O O I O O I O O I C C C Oco N co N 0 O Q a 0 co Q CD O 0 Q � N X �. X �. . >, (Y. Y = 533 m E m 5 m U c m 5 m c) a) 5 mu c 0 0w� ow 0 o5.� ow 0 <0 ow 0 a O 0 LC) 0 0) O I N CO O I O h O O CO V COCO • O O o O O Lf) co O I O) in O a) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O N O O O C7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 V O I O O O I O O O V V O I v V O 10 0 o O O O I v o (0. O LO 0 O 0 V (n O O O v LC) 0 0 0 V O O 0) 0 0 O O co O O 0 0 O co O O O O o 0 O o 0 o O O 0 co O a) N ( N o. 0 LO LO LC) LO (n O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 v o o I o 0 o V V o I v v o Lon N N O 0 0 O O (n 0 CD0 O O O V LO 0 O 0 0 o v Ln 0 O O O O V 0 LO O 0 LO 0 _ 0 O O V Y 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O C a3 N CO I 0 O I O O 0 0 10 N O O I O 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 co O CO CO O O O 0 Ln O O O v v O O O O Ln O 0 0 v Ln 0 0 O v O O (0 0 O O (O O O LON 0 O O I O CO Lin N LO 0 O O O O o O 1 O V Ln O 0 O O O O O 1 O V Lc) O O 0 O O O O O V o (0 0 0 O O o O (0 O O O O O O Ln 0 O O 0 0 0 O o v Ln O O 0 O O O O O V N O O O 0 0 0 o 0 10 O O N 0 O O O O v N c 0 N O '� >,i -O N ' O C • <CV >0 O M O CA O I O I I I Ln O O O O O O I v Ln O O 0 O O O I V LO O 0 0 0 O I v 10 O O 0 O O O I V 0 (0 N ) 0 O = < 0) O O O O O (n 0 O O O o v O LC) 0 0 O V LO 0 O O v O O O O (n 0 O o O 0 v O 10 0 O 0 V LC) O 0 0 v LC) 0 0 O V LO 0 O 0 v 0 0 LO O 0 O V O O O O O -0 O a) to 0) O O 0 0 0) 0 isC > = M Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 m Z N 0 0 ❑ Ln N 2 d W 10 N 2 a H O 2 0 ❑ 0 0 N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 534 CO 0 v 0 x- 0 I I O 1 1 O) I O 16 I O I 1 6 O O O O O 0 O 1 I 0 1 O I 1 v I O I v I O 1 1 6 LO 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 I I O I O 1 1 I O I I O I 1 0 0 0 I I O I 6) I O I,- I O I 1 6 6 O O O O O O 0 v v O L LO 0 0 O 0 O O 0 v v O 0 0 0 I- N- 0 0 0. I I O I O) I O 1.- I O I I N 0 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 0 M O O 0 O I O O I O I I O O I I O I I O I (fi O _ O 0 O O O O v (f) 6 In O V O (,) O O 0 0 O M 1 1 0 1 O 1 1 0 1 0 1 O 1 o 1 1 0 6v O M CO CO I 0 I o 0 l 0 1 0 l 0 1 0 0 0 I l 0 0 1 l 0 I l 0 I 0 0 0 X 2 CO LO 0 0 0 0 O O O Q eC O w 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 O I 0 CO 0 N O O O O C Y a O T C 0 Lo O co O O 0 O I o 1 0 l 0 1 0 1 1 0 v o 6 10 10 O O O o o 0 O 0 O 0 1 v 1 0 I v 1 0 1 1 0 v o 0 0 N- O o l 0 l 0 l 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 t o l 0 1 0 0 0 6 (f') O O CON 0 0 0 0 0 1 O O O 1 O v O 1 1 O v O C C co as E 4) 0 O O) cu (0 O O N O C (0 O- C O C i cx6 > '5 > cn 'S > c rn .�' E co c Q'o Ow a O c Ow a Ow 0 oO) a) _ 535 10 LC) Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 ov ov o 1 oV 0 o Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o I 1 ov ov o ov ov o 1 I I I I I I I Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 OV OV O OV oV 0 LC) LC) LC) L0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 OV OV O OV oV O Lc) L() 0 0 O O O O O O O oV O O oV O L) Ln L() LC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OV OV O OV OV O Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 OV OV O OV O 0 Lf) LSj 0 0 O O O O O O I I o ov o I o ov o L() 1.0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Q 0 O O O O OV O Ln Ln L() O 0 0 O O O O 1 O Ov vO Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 ov ov o ov v o o o o O O O o O O I I ov ov o 1 Ov ov o 0 0 0 g To o 0 L9 L o ¢' 0 > i Q > co 3.16. Paving (2027) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 0 0 0 W O 0_ N 0 0) 0 0 X 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 J 1 1 O LO I Occ O o 1 o CO 0 CD CD 0 I o I I 0 I O I I O I O I I I I I M O cc cc I O 0 I I O co O 1 O I I co o 1 O 1 I O Icc O CD o 1 o O 1 0 I (0CD O I 0 I I o CO CO 0 N o I o 0 0 0 -o0 0 X CC •9- 0 Y T X (B T N ow a- C = OS <0 536 O O N •71- rn 0 CO O N O CO N O CO CO 0 N O O) f- O CO N O O O 0) 0) LO O O 0 V V CO O N O O O c a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cn c 0 L6 c LO Ln O N O O Lc) O O V C N Q O w L() O O O V O C m a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) c 0 U w 1 I N N T = O 0 0 u) - O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L( O N 0 I` O0 LO N O Lf) O O O O O ✓ O - O 0 O O O - 0 0 O O O Lf) O O O O O ✓ O Lo O O O O O ✓ O - 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 0 O O O O O O ✓ O o c > • co N O L9 T <0 St) CO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O Ln LO LO LO 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O CO L• Lf 0 0) N 0 N O O O O CO 10 O M N O N O O O O 10 LO LO LO O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ V O 1 V V O LC) 0 O V O O 10 O O O V LC) O O O V O O O O O O Lo O O O V O O O L0 O O O V LO O O O V O O O O O O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O I v v O LC) LO LO LC) O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O Lo Lr) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O V O Lo LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O 1 O V O LO LO LC) O O O _ O O O O O O O O O O O O V O 1 v v O LC) LO LO LC) O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O 0 • • 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 V V O • O O — Y O Q) 7 c = a > al 537 N 0 0 I O I I 00 I O 1 I Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N O U N 0 0 z N 0 U H N 2 a Lo N a w 10 N a 1- d w 0- 0 0) O U X 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 J co 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06v 1 o I 1 06 I o I 0 I L 10 0 0 O o O q I o o I I I o I I co coO I I 00 I O 1co I I o I I o I o I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 10 L0 0 0 COCD O O O Q I O O I I I O I ov O 0 1 I I 1 O I I I I O II I 10 10 LC) 10 0 0 CO O o O O (O I o o I I 0v I o I v0 I M 10 L 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 CD 6 CD I I o I o I I v I o I v I O O I I I I o I I I I o II I 10 � 0 0 N.-0 0 0 0 I I o I o I I v I o I ov I 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I I 0 I o 10 I CO CO I o o I 1 o I o I o I 0 1 1 0 1 0 I o 10 co o I o � o o N- o E O U m E O Q w °) m T E xx0 � U .� (n 0 0�� ow < 20 0 co 10 0 0 0 0 0 I I ov 4 o I in o ov -0 N ID a) o f N c N (a O E U T C coxE T IY •7 L --E-6 !n U C 0 �r OL a 2< o o w < 2 v 0 .OL. < o w Architectu 0.83 E co C6 0 U 538 O I CO N O I I V O O O O m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I ov 0v o I I Ov 0 o Ov ov o O o I 00 00 00 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 O O o I I 0v 0 o 0v 0v o O c r O COO L o co oo O cO O I CO N O I O O O O O o I v O rn LO O CO CO 0 CO N O I I V O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 LO • 0 00 O N O O O O O O O 0 O O I o o O V 0 O 0 0 0 0 O N O O O O O O O O I 0 O I I o o O o 0 O Ln 10 Ln O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O OV O I O OV O O OV O LO LO LO Ln 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O 1 1 VV OV O OV OV O LO LO LO LC) 0 0 0 0 0 CO0 O O 0 O O 0 O 1 1 O O O 1 1 o O O o O O Lf) Ln L ) 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O o I o 0V o I I o 0V o o 0v o LL) Ln LL) O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O OV O I I O OV O O OV O LC) LC) L() 0 0 O 0 O N O O O O O O O O 1 O OV O OV OV O LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 N M 0 O O O O O O O 1 O O O 1 1 Ov Ov O OV OV O 0 o I I 0 0 0 0 0 CO o o O o o O O o o o OV o 1 1 VO OV O OV OV o m a) E `0 0 a> a m a 0 0 m `0 0 a> > X L 'O �, - X >, i -p L 'O c .� 0 m a3 _ > .� 0 N c 0 a) m O w 0 O &) > = o < O > = < > 3.18. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 H N 2 0 W O 2 0_ N 0 O 0 0 Z C7 0 0 0 0 0 J I I ) m >. E c X az 0 o u 539 O O O CO O O O O h rn O O CO • N O O O 0) M Ls) co O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lr) CO co O O O Ls) O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ls) 0 0 O V O V O V O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ls) Ls) O O O O O O O V v co In Ls) O O O O O O O O V v O • N- 0 C7 LL) O CO N 0 ✓ I"- 0 L7 Ln O CO N O Ln O N 0 O O O O V O N O O O O O OLs) O O V Ls) O O V O O O O O O CO O O 0 0 O O O CO O O O O O O O Ls) O O O O O O O O v O Ls) O O O co O O O V O O M 0 0 O O O N M 0 0 0 0 O O O Ls) O M O O O O O O V O Ls) Ls) CO M C 0 N Q O Ow 0 c 0 0 U N O � T < 0 C co N d � O • w 0 c 0 7 U U -- O C L o < 2 U a) 0) c 0 U w 0 0 N E• E N co 2 Q) C co 2 540 CO N O 6) N- O V O O O O a) N 0 0 O O I LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O OV OV o OV oV O LO LO LO LO 0 O O o 0 0 0 O 0 0 1 1 0v 0v 0 0v 0v o 1 4 O O O O I I vLO N 0 0 0 0 1 I I I I I I I LO LO LO LO 0 O 0 o O O 0 O O 0 OV oV O OV oV 0 LO LC) LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 OV OV O OV oV O L0 LO 0 O O O O O O O I I o ov o I o ov o LO LO LO LO O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 o LO LO LO LO O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 1 I v v 0 Ln Ln 0 0 O O O O o O -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q) I 0 v 0 I 0 v 0-111 OD Lf) L0 +� 0 o O O o O E O O O © O O C O V O O V O LO LO LO N O 0 O O 0 N O O O O O O O I o v o v v o N LO LO LO LO C3) O O 0 O C O 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 1E I v v o I v v o U C a) LO 0 0 0 O O 0 O o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 I v v o I v v o D m 0 T L m a ac ) Oi 2 a>. O C 7 C LO c C r < 0 > = < > = M Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 z N 0 0 H Lo N d 0 LO d w N a 1- 0 a 0 O w O a N 0 O 0 x O z 0 0 .0 co 0 J LO LO 0 O 0 0 O O O O V O I I v LO O O o I 0 0 1 O N 0 N O O I 0 1 I I 0 1 I I O O O) O O 1 O co o_ occ I 0 0 1 0 O I I I 0 I I I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O V O 1 I v LO O 6) I O I r) O 0 `° 0 I 0 L n 0 0 co o I I 0 0 I I o c c 'a-> m E 0 co E ' E X � .c I) X � .o- 541 V7 co 7 N 0 C_ LU N 7 0 au) ow O.-L. 0�� Q0 Ow O O O CO O N 00 O 1' CO 0 N O CO 0 N 0 O O O a) N 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c 0 U y To c c c 10 O O 0 v LO O O 0 v O N O N LC) 0 O O V Ln 0 O 0 v LC) 0 O O V N O 0 N O 0 LO 0 O 0 V Ncp E Q Ow O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O a) ( c O cL 0 E ca LO LO 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 ✓ v O Ln Ln 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 ✓ v o co CO O cci • N 0 co co O ci CO O • N O 1 1 I L() O _ O 0 O O O O v O Ln O _ O O O O O O V O 10 O O O O O O O V O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O O O Lc) 0 O O O 0 0 0 O v 0 10 O O O O O O O V O O) 0 - 0 O O O O CD- 0 O O O O Lc) 0 N O O O 0 O O V O Y -o O c O c N • 2 a) O (B T < 0 LO LO L0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v O 1 v v O LC) LO LO LO 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v o 1 v v o V CO 0 0 N O N O O O O ✓ ▪ CO O - N O N O O O O LO LO LC) LO o 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O O o O O O ✓ V O 1 V V O LC> LC) LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 ✓ V O 1 V V O LO LL) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O 1 O V O CO LC) LO LO 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O I v v O LC) LC) LO LO O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O LC) Lc) O 0 0 O o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o 1 o v o LO 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O V O 1 O V O LO 10 LO O 0 0 _ O O O O 0 O O O O O O O V O V V 0 LC) LO LO LO O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O ✓ v O 1 v v O LC) LC) LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 ✓ V O I V V O Y O O 0 Y O • 7 C • _ < > ▪ co 3.20. Utility Trenching (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 H N 0- 0 O W 0 0_ N 0 O 0 0 Z 0 Ln 10 0 V 542 CO N c\i co 0 1 0 o 0) 0 1 N LO LO Lli LC) LO O 0 O 0 O O O O 0 OV O 1 OV O I OV O OV OV O I LO LO LC) LO 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 1 I O O 1 1 ov O I ov O 1 1 ov ov O 1 O CO O h O cf) CO 0 N O I O 101 O I N o 1 O LO CO CO 0 No O I O I No O I v N 0 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO co in O O O o 0 0 v 0 1 1� 0 I v 0 1 1 0 v 0 1 Li-) O O O O O o 1 1 1 0 1 I 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 v 0 1 Ln LO LO ix) LL) LO 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 00 0 v o 1 I� o I v 0 1 1 0 v o l LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O 0 Q 0 O v 0 1 I � 0 I v 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 I l 0 I 1 0 I l 0 I 0 0o 0 LO LO LO Ln o o O o O O O O O O O o o o 0 1 1 0 o 10 0 1 1 0 O 0 1 LC) LO LL) LL) o o o o o O o O o O o o O V 0 1 I� o I v 0 1 1 0 v o l LO O 6) 0 N o 6) 0 10 I O O 1 0 O I O o 0 co o c; c;I O O I O O I O O O LC) co Lr) O O O co o O o O o N O 0 1 1 O O 1 1 v O I v O 1 1 O v O 1 C a) a) a) o N .NE . W )`` E a) o fa) m o a) a) E X .c n E a X aE: mlya : c ns 543 .3 io c a) a) . c u) o c 3 io) E ac0c�c0c00 0uw O,L. 02 >0 0w O,Lc w O,L0u > 2 02 a) N • O O N O N O O O O LO Ln LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 o 0 0 0 ✓ v d 1 v v O LC) LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 I v v d I v v o - CO 00 N 0 N O O O O V CO 0 N 0 N O O O 0 1 I I I I I I I LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O o O O O ✓ v O I V V O LO LC) LO LC) 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o O O O O O O I V V O I V V O LLi Lc) O O O (7 O o O O O O O O O O I O V O 1 O v O LO LO LC) LO 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 ✓ v d I v v O LO LO LO LO ^' 1.1O 0 O 0 0 0 Q O O o O O O ✓ v O I v v O Ln Lo 0 0 0 O 0 0 CO 0 0o o 0 o I 0 v 0 I 0 v 0 N CZ i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q m I O v O I O v O (0 C In 0 0O CO 0 0 0 _O 0 • 0 O o O O o (./) D I d v d 1 v v d co E • LO LO LO LO E 0 0 0 0 0 w Q o O O O O O O 0 o 0 0 o I v v o I v v o CI) 0 L0 LO LO LO O L O O O O }, V 0 0 o 0 0 o (6 d 0 O 0 o O i I v v d v v o 0) .La-) o c• O dT = c = c <0 > _ < > _ 4 Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 H Ln N 0 Ln N 0- H O d 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 E E ( c cc 0�� � 0 1- ¢ 1- 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 544 CN N a) N Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 m Z N 0 0 H N a N a 1- a 0 d w a N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 E To E f6 @ .�' C (0 6 C • (0 0 U) � H 0 H < • H 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 m H N 2 o_ 0 N 0 w N 2 0_ 0 d w 0- 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 a) m U 4) Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m -o a) • To in To > To-a E(0 • o o Eo 0 is 545 E f0 O C f0 O a1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a) 0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m m m m m is 0 m n t6 > o o a) 0 0 0 c -a) o a) 0 0 0 s cr E 7 a) -0 c ) c c > 7 a) -0 7 a) 7 n a) 1< Q W a CC 1 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H 0 0 0. 0 a w N 2 a 0 a w a 0 0 0 0 Z 0 cc c 0 .o m 0 a� E m T .—Eco ( =cco C o cn 2 i2 o 1- Q L V 546 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated a) N 0 0 O N Z c N 0 0 O 0 m Z N 0 0 m Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1OE PM1OD PM1OT PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T co I I I c co L L 1 11 1 I I c� G co 1 1 1 1 1 1 -a 0 co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 c co coC 1 1 1 1 1 1 o a_ a) as 0 ( > E > c TO ( To O ow � o§3 12 ¢ 1 . o a) N 0 0 O N Z H N 0 0 O 0 Z N 0 0 H N 2 0- 0 L cN 0- w 0 1- d 0 0_ w 0 0 N 0 O 0 0 Z O L LO V I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ a) -O a) -O a3 fn a3 a) (0 -O To (n To> (0 , X O O O O s 7 O 7 O O O a5 > s a) -O crS 7 a) 7 C > D a) -O 7 a) 7 0 Q (/) U) a) U) CC U) < < U) U) a) U) CC (r) 1 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule ' ase Iescn.tio !Tor 'a .- ,TXTil a ' - TiMa3 a) N 0 co (i) I I I O O O N N M N N o o OLri 10 N N N 0 O N N N N N n 1 CO LO N lO N N 0 N 0 N 0 W N N N O V N- Site Preparation Site Preparation Site Preparation Finishing/Landscaping Rough Grading 548 O N O O O N O) N N N N CO N N N O O O O O LC) LC) L ) LC) L ) 10/28/2025 N- h N- Lf) NNNN O O O O NNNN CO CO h 0) NNNN V CO LO 0) Lf) LO N O N N N O N O NO CO N CO CO N N N 0) — Lf) V CO 0) c 0 0) c 0 0 c Building Construction Building Construction 0) .5 co (7) c 0 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 0) c c a) H Utility Trenching 5.2. Off -Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 'ours 'er •aA T (C 0 a) a) Q C) E Z i - a\FTiii' o N- ti 0o O N- o HO r` 0) o v f-- 71- CO C) M V M M V M N N N- CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o r— O O o N- O r` O O O CO V 4 coV co O V (O V coN 4 V co co co co CO CO CO CO N CO CO — CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 c0 a0 OO O 00 co c0 00 O c0 N- OO O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln M 4 Lc-) a) I..L N N V N N N N NNNN NNNN H H H H H H H H I— 1— I— 1— H H H a) 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Site Preparation N a) 0 a) a) a) a) lf) (0 V7 a) a) a) a) 0 0 0 0 Excavators Rough Grading Rough Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Rough Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diese Rough Grading (0 a) 0 4) (7(7 CO V) (0 (1) a) a) O 0 0 Excavators (o a) 0 a) 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel 0) 0) 0) 0) c c c c • fs =a is as (o co as O 0 0 0 C• CCC IT it It it (7(7a) V) (I)to a) a_) a) 0 0 0 V) a) c U) (2 00 0 (i Building Construction Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Building Construction a) 0 549 4 V CO CO CO4 In O O O O O O O O O O O O co 6) co N- O V 00 00 co M V O O co) O 0 O O O O co O O 00 CO (0 (0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O N N N NNNNNN CI) a) a) 0 a) a) H I— H H H N 0 a) a) 0 0 a) EEEEEE O a) 0) - a) d Building Construction Paving Equipment (L2 a) O CD � c CO (0 0_ 0_ 0_ Air Compressors Architectural Coating Utility Trenching 5.2.2. Mitigated 3 0 Q a) 0 'ours 'er'a� c co 0 0) a) Q a) Q E 7 Z ,, . . 1= 0 I. N- a0 0 I- CO 0 h 0) 0 V M co co cY co M CO N N I'- M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O 0 O O 0 ti o O O O O co V 4 co V co V O co V (O N 4 4 O co 00 00 co '— M N M co 00 M 00 — 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O co co co 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 cO 00 00 00 00 f— CO 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OLo M 4 r M M M r MLO a) a) a) 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Site Preparation a) 0 0 CCCCCCI3 C6 CZ CZ It it it V V V V - .a) a) a) a) a) H H H H a) a) a) a) EEEE Excavators Rough Grading Rough Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Rough Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diese Rough Grading a) a) 0 Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final (7a) a) 0) a) a) a) 0 0 0 Excavators (0 N a 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel 0) Cr) 0) CCCC =a ' o (0 (0 a) m CD CD 0 C7 a) a) 0 a) CCCC u_ u u u Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final (T)) a) (1) V! ti CD a) a) 0 65 N � c o 0 (i Building Construction Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Building Construction Tier 4 Final rn N Building Construction CO 550 coc\J co 71- co V L O O O O O O O O O O • O) c0 co O co 00 co co V O O O O O O O O O O W 00 00 (0 0O O O O 0 O N N N N N N CD DI CCCCC LL LE IL L.L it V V V . V O N 0) U) N H H H H H N N N U) � 0 O a) N 4) EEEEE Paving Equipment 0) CD C C c c c co 0_ Air Compressors Architectural Coating Utility Trenching 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated ►•caitcataMI ene-Tva nos .er 1aA :IiF 1►FTiir; LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT H H ❑ ❑ 2 2 I f—• O O N- O O O V O co N I I co N LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT LDA,LDT1,LDT2 h 0 0 0 N I 17 0 O O CDO O CD CDO 0 LO O 11 O I C) Ln 0 I Onsite truck a) I C CC C C O O O O O CCD a) a) Q) co m m co m a 15 15 a co co co c6 co co N co co 0_ Q 0_ Q Q 0) 4) 00 O 0 0 0 0 N N N 4) 0 0 0 0 0 Onsite truck Rough Grading O) Y O C O C I > _ Onsite truck C C CC C O O O O O U U U U U 7 C 7 7 O U O U CCCC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0) CD CD CCCC CO m COm Building Cons CD CD 5 5 .551 HHDT,MHDT H H 0 0 _ = I o O N I I Onsite truck C) CO CD aa co d d LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT H H 0 0 _ = I O O N I I LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT H H 0 0 _ = LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT H H 0 0 _ = I LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT H H 0 0 _ _ 0 0 f- 0 0 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O I 0 o IL.6o l O) Y O C O I > Onsite truck CD CD C C C Cr)0) C C 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 f6 N CO CO f6 7 C 7 7 C L . L . L U U U U U < < < < < O) Y O C_ O I > _ Finishing/Landscaping Finishing/Landscaping Finishing/Landscaping Finishing/Landscaping Onsite truck Finishing/Landscaping O) Y O C O C I > _ Onsite truck Onsite truck 0) CD CO CO 0) CO O) 6) CO O) L E L L L C c c c c U U U U U C cc C C (6 06 06 63 (6 N 6) N 0 0 H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 T T T T T 0 0 0 0 0 •_ LL LL LL LL LL DDDDD 5.3.2. Mitigated one-Wa Tri•s •erDaA Site Preparation 552 0 0 1- 0 0 1- ❑ 0 0 0 N I 0 cd 0 0 N I 0 Cd 1- 0 0 N 1- I 0 0 1- 0 N I 0 0 LC) O LO Site Preparation O O 0 Site Preparation O O O Site Preparation O 0 Ln Rough Grading O O Rough Grading O 0 O O) ca 2 Rough Grading O O M O Building Construction Building Construction O O O C S Building Construction 0) C 0 O 0 LO a) C ca 0 O Q. Q) C 0 O O O O) C 0 Onsite truck Architectural Coating O d Architectural Coating O Q. Architectural Coating O O O Architectural Coating Finishing/Landscaping O Finishing/Landscaping O 0 C Finishing/Landscaping 553 H 1- 0 0 _ = LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- 0 0 _ = LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 0 0 r� 0 0 17 ao N I— ao N o I 0 o I 0 0 0 I Finishing/Landscaping Onsite truck Finishing/Landscaping 0 0 D I � > Onsite truck 0 0 O C 0 Onsite truck 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O) 0) 6) co 0 L L L L L C C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C @ @ CO @ CO a) a) a) 0 0 (D C) 0 (0 0 >, >, >, >, >, C C 0 C C •_ iL U DDDDD 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies WAIIIMMtrin ,yIIIL' Tate] ontrol trate•ies A• • lie • 0 L 7r o LO v rn Water unpaved roads twice daily Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph Sweep paved roads once per month 5.5. Architectural Coatings 'arkin• Area oated eria @ 0 0 0 w 0 a) a 0 c c m 0 0 Z o 0 a) 0 O 0 @ 0 0 w 0 c a) " cs 0 0 O 0 @ 0 0 0 c @ 0 -o 0 Iri O 0 0 O O O r 0 Architectural Coating 5.6. Dust Mitigation 554 Construction Earthmoving Activities cc; LC) P cres 'ave. acres; bRIMMIIBITTIIMTZWEILIE /_v7 e1 T F (acres; v atena xporte. (.j% vatena mporte. on tarr, 0 I I I 00000 O QQQ O O O O O O O O O O O M O M N Q CO 0 - N O Site Preparation Finishing/Landscaping Rough Grading 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies arAiramIreirm requenc per •a ontro trate. ies .. ie. 0 co Water Exposed Area 5.7. Construction Paving co L a_ A rea Paved acres; O 0 o 0 0 O N- Apartments Low Rise cn 0 U LL 0 • E 00 0 W O N 0 Q 2 E g w o C.) 0 • U U LI U - O a) 'c W c w O -r U c c� L CTS y-' a) >- O Q • L v) Q V - c a o LO c 0 Z 1 0 } Q LC) L() (0 0 0 0 O O O O O O v v v CO CO CO 0 O 0 O O d - r 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 O 0 0 Ln 0 N- 0 0 0 (0 co1.0 is) 555 . :. Ve. etatio ..18.1. Land Use han. CD ca 0) E D co Lfi Final Acres Initial Acres Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Land Use Type .. :. . . V iti •ate • Final Acres Initial Acres Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Land Use Type :ion -lass over T • CO LC) ..18. . . Unmiti.ate• Biomass Cover Type .. :. . Y iti •ate • Biomass Cover Type ..18.2. e • uestratio D a) co 0) E N co Lcj Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) a) E z . . Y iti •ate • Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) E z 556 8. User Changes to Default Data IllZi a) a) cn U a @ To L Q co 0) Q O c a) co c N U @ L Q @ 'Co 0 1i U N co N N @ L co a) c U co aj a) C- C U _ V) o 12 Hco L Construction of Phase 2 would occur from June 2025 to June 2027. Construction: Construction Phases 1) 1- 0) c Q U 0 0 C J O) C L 0) c ii a U X m a) a) N @ L Q C a) E Q 7 N L N 75 ▪ O▪ ) C C @ L C C C CD a) E a_ T N 7 73 co C co a) Q a) CD E U Ccn X @ @ Q V Construction: Off -Road Equipment Construction worker and vendor trips provided by the Project Applicant. Construction: Trips and VMT LO 10 557 on 580 - Phase 3 Construction Custom Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated 3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated 3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated 3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated 3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 558 3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated 3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated 3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated 3.13. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated 3.14. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated 3.15. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated 3.16. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated 3.17. Building Construction (2030) - Unmitigated 3.18. Building Construction (2030) - Mitigated 3.19. Building Construction (2031) - Unmitigated 3.20. Building Construction (2031) - Mitigated Building Construction (2032) - Unmitigated N ri 3.22. Building Construction (2032) - Mitigated 559 3.23. Building Construction (2033) - Unmitigated 3.24. Building Construction (2033) - Mitigated 3.25. Paving (2033) - Unmitigated 3.26. Paving (2033) - Mitigated 3.27. Architectural Coating (2033) - Unmitigated 3.28. Architectural Coating (2033) - Mitigated 3.29. Architectural Coating (2034) - Unmitigated 3.30. Architectural Coating (2034) - Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data CO M 560 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off -Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 561 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 8. User Changes to Default Data 562 Information a) To a) ii co 0 Dublin Fallon 580 - Phase 3 Construction Project Name O U N Q) j O O O 4 I a- 00 o Construction Start Date a) Land Use Scale Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) 37.70627361661711,-121.84643848238551 Bay Area AQMD San Francisco Bay Area U C C O > v) C co LNL o O ❑ . Q 0 J U 0 Q H W Pacific Gas & Electric Company Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric 2022.1.1.20 1.2. Land Use Types C 0 Q 0 0 a) :ui •in. rea OE 3 c 0 N in and Use ubt p: O O O O O 6 0 O O O CO CO CO N Manufacturing co co 563 N N 0 U c) CO N N Lf) CO - CO O O CO N fS) Lf) LO E O O O 2 O O O O O O O O CO cD O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 CO c) 0• cn O O 0 O O 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector ►•Ai iuit r11F lO U 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 0 N Z 0 U 0 0 Z N 0 0 H 2 d cN a LC) Lf) f3) o) 0 CO CO 00 CO LO L() O O co co c0 co c0 co Ln Lf) O 0 co co O N 4 . O M 00 0 0 CO CO CO CO O O N N 1 CO CO N CO CO (3) M CO CO CNi M CO o M COo -0 2N N N N a o N- 1 ,— O N- O CO co (9 r2 V C CO (O 1 C (6 0 0 (O a) L U H a 0 a N 0 co 0 U X 0 Z 0 cc N E co 2 - Lc) O N N O O CO M O 0 0) 0) O N cd • N N- N- N ▪ N c 0 CO Lf) Lf) O V U CD CD o � = C (6 N N O O CO CO N N r- c) co co O N N- N ▪ N c c Lf) O V a 0 a CC 564 CO CO LO. CO O O N N I I CO- M I N N 0 0 O N N N-N 1- V CO N- CO LO LO N O LC) O 4 co N CO CO O) 6) W n (O (O co co co N N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO I I o o O O N_ N_ 0 0 I 10 0 I V 4 _ _ Oa) (0 (0 N N I I M M I 4 4 O O CO co c\rO O I M M ICO N N I I O O I co o O co O O ti N N N N LO LC) O O_ I I N N I o 7 M o O O f� O O f- O O) O O O O N N I I O O co co c45 co co co v. I I 10 1 O 0 LC) O V LO M Ln M LC) O V N N N Cc) 0 _ (SS 0 .T (B .-f - C (6 = -a <0 o Q' < 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 m H N d 0 N a w N a 1- O d 0 O d N 0 Cn 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 N Ects 0 CO (O LC) Ln LC) LC) LC) V V 'Cr CO O f- 1 N- N N O O) O N N N N N N N N LO N 0") CS) 0") 0") 1- CO CO^ LC) N- O O O O O O O O O O If) CO0CO N LC) CO COO CO O COCCOO O) N- LC) O LO 6) CO LC) O) (0 O O co-N co co N N N N N CO LO CO CCO LC) CO CCOO COO O CO 0)) N- LC) O LC) 0") CO Nf) O - L) (0 co co O O N coN N N N N I I I I I I I I I I 0) CO CO 00 CO f— O CO 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO M M M M M M (M M M M CO CO COO CO CO N- N- LO Lc) LO O O O O O O O O CO CD CD O N- N- N- N- N- N- CO N N N N N N N N N co Cfl (O (O M (O (O (O CO CO CO CO CO O) a) 6) co CO CO co O O O O O O O O O CO CO CO M CO CO CO CO CO O O O O O O O O O O (NI O LC) (O O (°V N7 V O O) LO 00 CO CO 0) N- M I- r- h CO CO CO CO LO LO 0) O) N 7 N CO C. 7 CO co t - M co N- CO CO M CO 0 0 0 0 V (A CO N-CO CO LC) 4 CO O LC) LC) Lf) V V V V V (fl CO 565 N O O O O O O O N O M LO M LC) LC) N O O CO 10 O LO O M I� O M ti CO 10 co O O MNNNNNNN N- O M CO 0)) CO CO LC) CO 0 CO LO I"- CO I- CO 6) LO N O O 6) Cr; 0 N N N N N 6) CO O CO LC) O CO CO CO 00 N- M N V V M N O I-- N- N- co co co O 6) O O N N N N N N N N O M M 0 N O. 0 0 Cr) CO 0 CO CO h O O — — — O O O O O O O N 0 N CO0N CO 71- M CCOO 0 0 CO CO O '— Lf) 6) M N- N 0 65 6) 0 0 O co- LC) L. O N N N N N N N N N N N W 65) CO co 0 N Lco 71- C) M 0 0 CO CO x— CO LC) 6) CO n N 0 O N N N N N N N N L.6 N I I I I I I I I I I I 0 M M M M M M M M M M 1 0 CO CO CO r- N- N- h co N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO I— V 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) O O) 6) co M M M M M M M M M O CO CO CO CO CO LC) LC) LC) LO Lf) CO N N CO 0 CO N- t` N- N- O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 V N- N- N- N- N- N- Lf) N LC) N N N N N N N N N M MO O O O O O O O O N CO CO 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 N- M CO Cr) O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O Lf) O (0 0) CO M M M M CO M M O O O O O O O O O O O O V 0 N 7 N N• N LC) CO 1 CO CO CV 6) co co O 0 co. N M h co CO CO O Lf) LC) CO Lf) O) 61 N O O 6) LO 0 0 N 6) 6) 0 I- O 10 Ln. co co co co co co V CO CO 1O co LC) V M V - Lf) Lfj (') LC) N N 0 0)) CO CO LO CO 000 LO1> CO O O O O O O t O O N- 6) 6) r co 0 1 CO LO LO LC) LC) O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 0 0')0 M 0)) 71- N 0)) COO 0)) 6) 10 6) LC) N- N 0 O O 6) O 0 0 Lf) N N N N Lf) O CO 0 Cr)0 M Cr)N 0)) COO 0)) 6) Cr) V 6) LC) x— N N CO V N- N O O O 0) O 0 0 r co N N N N Lf) co I I I I I I I I I I I I LO N CO COV V M COM M N LO LO LO CO 0 0") N M M M M M M M O I 6) CO D CO CO CO CO CO CO CO D� N N N N N N N O O CO LO V V V V N 71- 1 CO CO CO LC) LC) LC) Lf) M 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N co O 0 6) LC) Lf) CO. LC) Lf) Lf) LO 6) N LC) NM N O co O LO LO CO (( CCOO CCOO CEO co LC) LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0") Cr) co O I O O O O O O O O O O V LC) 0 0 M M M N M LC) CO V N N M N- 0 CO N O 6) 0 co O M V V V V CO M N N CO Lf) N N 6) 0 Lf) M N N N N N N N ,— 0 LO V F N CO LO M N CO COO N N M M M M M M co N N I LO CO I- CO 6) 0 N M V N N N N N N M M (7)Cc) M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNNNNNN fU f0) T < 0 LO CO h 0 6) O N M V N N N N N N M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNNNNNN 566 O LO0 LLO CON M N N 0 N M (Ni M M M M co 0 �O N N 0 0 0 N N V C � M LO N O LC) O V h 00 N CO CO O O C) 00 h h CO CO M M M N N N N N N LC) O O O co co co LC) LC) V (0 O O co co co M N N N O O V O O O O O O O O O V LO O N h N N O O 0 0 M Q 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V 71" CO CO O 4 0 M CO N O N (0 N LC) N M M M M co- M co 0 0 0 CO LC) V N CO CO O V CO 0 0 CO O V M N O N 0 N M M M M co- M M 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 0 C0 M M CO,—N MCO CO 7 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO N 0 O O O O O O O O O O O (0 N CC LC) LC) LC) LC) LC) Li) LC) Lf) CO O O O O O O O O O O O 2 In � co V O O O O N. O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O V (0 LC) 0 N 0 0 0 -0 LC)M N N N N N N N CO O N N N N N N N O O V CO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO Uf O N N N N N N N O O -0 (13 Ln W o 00 LC) N N N No O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O v C C O O O O O O O O O O O N �+ V O O O O O O O O O v r 0 0 co V 0 CO LC) O h 00 00 (0 4 00 a0 V O h V N 0 N- CO I'1 -0 N cc; 00 00 00 h I- h (0 N O •— L (0 _ W M 00) M N C9 90) 0 n h No M Ln Lf) Lf) LC) 4 4 4 4 N C (0 _ —5 0 In 0 CO LC) O) N- CO 0 L1) L O 4 O CO (9 CO LC) LC) LC) O O O O O O O O O Lf) O 0 (0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 H N 2 0_ LC) N 0_ W N 2 0_ 1- O 2 0 O 0_ W O 2 0_ N 0 (n 0 0 0 Z 0 CO LL) LC) LC) () LC) V V V CO N h h h N N f 0 0 O N N N N N N N N N M 0 0 0 h COCC) LC) 1 O O O O O O O O O O CO () CO C N LC) CO CO0COO COCOCO N O O) N- LC) O LC) O CO N-0 1- LC) 1) O (fl (M N N N N N N N CO LC) CO CO Lf) CONCO C09 M CCOO ON) r- LC) 0 LC) 0 CO N-0 N— LC) CO (`') (1) ON N N N N N N I I I I I I I I I I COCOCOCONICOCOM M ONNNN 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6) 0 0 M M C') M M (4) M M M M CO N CO CO CO CO LC) Lf) LC) LC) LC) 0 (Ni N N N O O O O O O O O O O LO LC) LC) LC) LC) 7h 1' O (0 (0 CO (0 M O (0 (O O (Ni N N N N N N N N 00 (0 (0 O (fl (0 (fl (0 O (fl N N N N N N f) CO CO CO CO L O O O O O O O LC) LC) LC) O O O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO O O O O O O O O O O N O LC) co. co. O V N 7 V co M 0) h N. CO CO (9 CO LC) LC) h N M N (9 t N- i N O 0 N N N N N N— N M h 0 00 h h h 0 co V co O 0 O LC) Lf) V V 4 V V V M Lf) CO h 00 0 O N CO v ) NNNNNNCOCOMCOCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •L NNNNNNNNNNN N U .�' (0 N N N N CO N OC) M M M 567 (75.2 O O O O O O O N O O CO LO - CO LC) LC) N O O CO Lf) O LO O M F - O CO N co f— O O O CONNN▪ NNNCV LO CO N N.-0 CO CO 0 CO CO - LC) CO 0 CO 10 CO ti M 6) co N - O O 0) O W N - NNNN 0) O 6) CO LC) 10 CO CO CO CO 00 N- CO N V V M N • f-- N- N- co co co O O O O N N N N N N N N O N- O CO CO N 'I- N O. 0 - 0 0) CO 00 CO CO h O O — — — O O O O O O O N 000 0')000 N- V • LO CCOO 0 - 0 CO CO CO '- Lf) 0) CO N N CO r 0) 0) 00 0 r- CO co- Lf) L. (0 N N N N N N N N N N o N CO 66)) CO0N • LC) CO 0 - 0 CO CO x— CO LO ▪ 6) CO n N 0) C0 N N N N N (.6 N N N N I I I I I I I I I I I 6) M M M M M M M M M LOCNCNCNIN L() CO CO CO CO M CO CO CO CO CO f- • 6) 6) C) 0) 0) 6) 0) O) 6) LO • M M M CM M M fM M M O OLO 0)) N 0 C 000 LO CO M O O O O O 0 t 0 0 N- 0) 0) r CO CO 1 N- CO LO LC) Lf) Lf) - O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 00 0')0 M 0')N 0') CCO COO 0))) 0) 0) ▪ 6) Lf) x— N N CO O O O 6) O (0 O ▪ LO N - N N N LO CO CO CO CI)0 M 66)) CO 6)CCO COO 0))) 0) 6) V 0) LC) x— N CO V • N- 4 N O O O 61 0 00 00 r L() N - N N N Lf) co I I I I I I I I I I I I N O O O 0 0 0 N COCN- - N o') M M N N N N O O 0")N- N N M N- Cb CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO N N N N N N N O O CO O O Lf) O O - N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O v CO LC) LC) LC) LO LO CO COcc; (6 CO (6 (O (O CO CO (fl N LONNNNNNNNN M Mcc;CO cc; cc; cc; cc; (.6CO cc;N N CO CO CO CC) CO Lf) Lf) LO Lf) Lf) O O N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O - V Lf) O CO moo M M M M co coo, O O O O O O O O O O O O V • O N 7 N N N LC) CO 1 CO CO CV 6) CO co O 00 CO N O CO h CO CO CO C0 LI) LC) LO L1) Lf) CO CO CO 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O O V Lf) 0 0 LO CO 6) r- h ti N- CO CO CO CO CO N N (0 co O 0 6) Lf) Li) 10 U) lf) 10 U) 0) N LC) N M N CO co O co co 00 CO 6) 00 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O V O O 0") O O O O 0") O CO O I O O O O O O O O O O V Lf) 0 0 LS) 0 0 M. M. M. N M. LC) CO V N N CO M N- CO CO t N O 6) 00 co O • M V V V V CO CO N 6) CO CO') N 0 CO CO CO 0 0 CO CO co f- N C) Cr) N— CO 0 0 • CO Lfl V M N O O 6) V O CO CO Lf) V V M t O • N N N N N N N CO CO f- 6) CO CO coCO CS) 00 O O) V • Lf) 4 4 4 4 4 4 M N N N N O O M COCO 0 N 4 W 0 O N M M M M N N N N N I V LO CO F- CO 0) 0 N CO V NNNNNNCOCOCOMCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNNNNNN 0) f0) T < 0 LO CO h CO 0) 0 N CO NNNNNNCOCOCOCOCO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNNNNNN 568 N CO 0 (0 LO V CON N CO N 6) 71- N M CO' M M M M co 6) — a) N 0 U co 0 co co 0 0 O co co coLo co - CO O O .— co co co co‘— N N N 0 O V O O O O O O O O O V LO O N h N N 0 0 O) O) M O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O V 6) 0 CO LO V N 71- CO CO 0 O (0 M CO N O N CO N O Lo O 71- N M M M M co- M co 6) 0) 0 CO LO V N 71- CO CO 0 V CO 6) 0 CO O V M N O LO 0 V N M M M M M M M 6) I I I I I I I I I I I N M LO LO L0 CO LMo LC) CO CO CO O O O O O O O O O O O N LO CO N CO LO LC) LO LC') LC) LO Lf) 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O LC) 0 NCOCOCONNNN O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O V CO CO M M V CONNNCOCO V N CO O N N N N N N N O O CO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( M O N N N N N N N O O LC) O N M M M M N N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O V 10 Ln O 0 NNNNNNN O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O V O O O O O O O O O V CO V 6) CD LO O h CO CO 71- CO CO V O h V N 6) CO N Cfl CO CO 00 h I- r- cc; N O CO CO CO 0.)0 66)) 0 N- L LC)COO O f cr) M N N N N N O O LO 0 COO (0 CO Cfl LC) LO LO LO 0 CO O O O O O O O O O Lf) N N N N N N OM M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNNNNNN 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 U N 0 0 m Z N U m 0 O d W O_ a 0 U x 0 Z 0 0 ce 0 0 0 J 0 I O O CO N O 10 I O O 0 1 1 M O N 0 O 0 0 N I CO O CO 0 f� O N 0 I 0 I I O 0 I 1 if) E n E c co o 0 U) X co 2 -0 O O Q � O 0 w Dust From — 0 0 O 569 O O O O O O co O O CO N V N O N O CO N O O O O Lc O N O N O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O N O O O O O N O O L0 O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O V O O 11) 0 0 Ln - O O Lf) 0 co O O O - O O M 0 0 0 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O V 0 0 - O O O O O 71- 0 0 - 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O co O O O O O 71- 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O M a) O) <0 c 0 U w C -o N a) Q O w a) N c 0 ID 0 570 O 0 (co O O O O I LC) O O a) N 0 0 O M co ▪ 1 O I Li) O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O I v O O Ln 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 O 0 1 v o 0 0 O 0 CO 0 O O O 1 Lf) O O 0 0 L0 0 0 O O I L() O O Ln O O O O O 0 O O O O 1 O O V O O LC) O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O V O O 0 0 0 CDO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 1 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O Ln O 0 0 a o 0 O O O O o O 0 1 v 0 0 Ln O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O I v O O O O 0 C - c 7 Y c = c `c = > = < >_ 3.2. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 z N 0 0 m H N 2 0 (n N 2 0_ H 0 0 O d N 0 0 0 x 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 O O 0 Ln I 0 1 0 1 o CO0 M LriI O I (O Cr) 0) O M I Lr) I O 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I O t O N N O M O I O O O N I I M O I I O O n O O N I I O I O I O O CO O N CO O O O ICD CD O I I O O N 1 I O 1 O 1 O Ln O I I O 1 O I O I I N I O I (0 I I N ▪ 1 O 1 O O O N I I O 1 O 1 O O) W E E' E E C N O a) 0 -0 0 O 0 a)0 E lL •13 E a 0 0 E u •� E n E ns n > ti (Y) =c ns o — c in > 0 0(n- Ow 022 O - 0—� <0 Ow 022 571 O O O LO 0 N O O O 0 0 O O 0 o co0 co 0 co O O I Lf) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) c 0 U w (6 c O O O N 0 N LC) O O O V O N 0 N O O -o E Q Ow O O co co O CO CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O N c 0 U s- 0 4) E O O O O O O O O 10 O o o O O O v O O 0 O O O I I I M O O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 'Cr 0 0 O O O O O 71- 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 I,- 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 (o O O O O O O O O Y O o O) C (o 2 T> 0 X co 2 N U) T < co co O O o c) co O O O O O O O O O V O O I V O O co co co O O O O O O O O O O O V O O 1 V O O co O O in O O C) O O I Lf) O O CO O O CO O O CO O O L0 0 0 Lf) O O Ln O O O O O O co O O O O O O O O I v O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O LCj O O O V O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O CO 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O CO O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 71- 0 O O O O O O O I O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 Ln O O I O O O v 0 0 co 0 o O O O o O O O O O O O O O I V O O Y O O ( Y 0.)O o 7 C 0 7 = a > _ CO L!) CD CO a) y--r E N 0 N CY) rLn V ri 572 C") CN N 0 0 N O N O O O CO CO 0 O I 0 O I o Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 00 Z N 0 m H N a 10 N a 0 d w a N 0 O 0 X 0 Z 0 0 Ct c 0 Lc) N 0 c) N CO 0 CO O O N V rn M O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 O O c 0 0 I a O I N 0 co O co - I I c) N CO I I 0 M 0 O O E C x0 2)- 0 2 0 w O o O O O O O O O O o O N V 0 O O O O 0 O Ln O M O O LO O M O O O O O O O E O N w •t7 E O c U > c 0 2 2 O b N O) � T < 0 0 O 0 O O N N O N N O 0 N O Ln O O co 0 O co E Q O 0w 0 N O Ln co O LO 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O a) c 0 co CO 573 0) o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 6 o 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 I 1ci o 0 0 O 0 v 0 0 rn rn O O O O O O 10 0 O O O N O Ln O 0 N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O o O O O 0 0 1) O 0 0 O O O v o 0 0 0 O O O O I I I 71- O 0 O O O O O O 71- O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I� 0 0 O O O O O h O 0 O O O O O o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O 00 O O O O lf) O 0 O O O O O O h 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o O O 0 0 0 10 O 0 0 O 0 0 v o 0 moo co O O I I I O 0 O O O O O O r o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f� 0 O O O O O O f- O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 h 0 0 O O O (0 O O O O O O O O r- O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 o 0 o O O O o V 0 0 I v 0 0 Ln LO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 V o o I v o 0 rnoo M O 0 '4 O O 0 0 0 f- 0 O O O O 6) O O M O O I V O O LO O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I V O O Lf) 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O O I V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 O O O o O O O I O O O O o O O O o O O O I O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O CO 0 0 N O 0 O 0 O O O O O O I O O O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O I V O O lf) 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O I v O O E O To (L) Li .c E O ID c 0 0 U ID 0 Y O O) c (6 2 >. C o X co 2 0) c (6 2 U) 0) (a T < 0 Y LO 0—co 1) O 0) 7 0 C 7 > < > CO 574 CN N 0 0 N O N O O O I I (0 ▪ I O I Gfl ▪ I O I - I o 3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 00 Z O 0 m N a 1- d w 2 a N 0 0) O 0 X 0 Z 0 0 I I 4) m = E m c 0 0 CO O O r N 0 N O N O N d O O O O O O • Q � Ow N 7 O O O O O 0 O d O 0 O O 0 O d O 0 O O O O 0 O d O 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 O O c 0 0 U O O r N 0 N O N O N d co Ln co co O (9 O Q � O O w N 7 O O O O O 0 O d O 0 O O O O d O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O c 0 0 U I CD LO O N I I I I N I O I CD O I co Icci (.1 I d 0) O E >,o < 0 0 w O O O 0 O O 0 O d O 0 O O O 0 O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O • U O 575 O • 0 0 0 0 CO o 0 0 - 0 0 LC)6 0. 0 0 0 0 c) 0 0 LCi o 0 Ln O 0 v O 0 rn rn 0) rn Ln O O 0 v Ls) 0 0 v Ln O O v LC) O O v Lf) 0 0 v Ln N O O LC) 0 0 Ln 0 0 N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 1 I 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 o O O 0 0 ✓ 0 0 0 0 oo 0 0 1 1 I • 0 0 O o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 - 0 0 O O O L- O 0 - O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O co O O 00 O 0 O O O Lf) 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 o O o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 ✓ 0 0 oco 0 - 0 0 moo o - 0 0 1 I 1 o 0 O O o O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f� 0 0 - 0 0 O O O L� 0 0 - O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O co O O N O O O O O co O O O O O O O O L- 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Ln O O O o O o 0 0 O 0 o c:; 0 0 ✓ o o v o 0 L0 0 0 o o o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ 0 0 v 0 0 rnoo O v o 0 0 0 0• 00 goo CO 0 0 - 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 v 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O M 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 0 0 N O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 o o q O o O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O V O O 0 rn c a) c 0 U w 4) E N T E N 0 O cn c c Ca 2 a) O (9 T <0 c Y O O O Q) 7 c c 7 = a > a) 576 CN N 0 0 N N CO CO CO 0 CO (D O I (D O I N O a) 0) y-+ E N N 0) fLn V L cr) Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 00 Z O 0 m N a Lu L N 2 a 1- d (=> a w 2 a N 0 0) O 0 0 Z 0 0 I I 0 U 0 J 4) m = E m c 0 0U) 1.0 O n N O CO N CO N CO co CO co O co (0 co co W cO CO N 7 rn U M O O O O O d O d O O O O d O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cll co c 0 0 U 1.0 O n N O CO N CO N CO M co CO co O co W cO CO N 7 rn U M O O O O O O O d O O O O O O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c 0 0 U O I d O N O I N I I I I O O O I I O I Lc) O I I I o ▪ I N I O 0 0) O ▪ E >, < 0 0 w E O 0 LL •� E ti)N o 0 2 2 O O O O O O 0 O d O O O O O O 0 O d co O O O N O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 O U O 577 0 0 O O O O N O O co O O - O O O O 00 O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O In N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 I - 0 0 O O O O O O Ln O O O O O O V O O co O O O O 1 1 I • 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n O 0 - 0 0 O O O L— O O - O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O n O O h O O O O O • 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N- O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Ln O O O O O O O ✓ O O co O O - O O 1 I 1 71- O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L- O 0 - O 0 O O O Ls 0 0 - O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 0 0 CO 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 O O N- O 0 0 0 0 O O O LO Ln O O O O O O O O O O o c:; O O V O O V O O L0 (0 O O O O o o O O O O O O V O O I V O O 6 O O O • O O co O O O O p O 0. O - O O O O O O O O O O O o o O O o O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lf) O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 0 O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lf) 0 0 LO 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O q O O O O o O O O O O O V O O Lf) O N O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O V O O CO N c C E OLu c 0 U w 4) E N T E N co m 0 O cn N O L9 T <0 Y O O Q) O = -O so • 7 C c • = < > _ 578 CN N 0 0 N N CO CO O O O O N 3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N O U N 0 0 00 Z O U m N a w N 2 a 1- d N 0 0) O U X 0 Z 0 0 0 U 0 J I I a) = E m cm a3 D 2 0 o r N O O rn O N O N N CO O O co 0 m 0 Q Ow N 7 E o m LL •� E o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cll c 0 0 U r N O O O O O O rn O N O N N co O co co O N 7 E o m LL •� E o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c 0 0 U O I O I I I O O Lr O O I I O O O I O I I CO O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O co O N O N O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 � U O 579 CO 0 0 O O coO O co - O O O O N O O co O O - O O O O O O O O O O N N O () O O O O O O In N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 I - 0 0 O O O O O O LO O O 0 O O O V O O co O O O O 1 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n O 0 - 0 0 O O O L— O O - O O O O o o O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O n O O h O O O O O O O O O O O O O N- O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Ln O O O O O O O ✓ O O - O - O O co O O - O O 1 I 1 71- O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L- O 0 - 0 0 O O O Ls 0 0 - 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 0 0 CO 0 0 O O O (0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N- O 0 0 0 0 O O O LO Ln O O O O O O O O O O O c:; O V O O V O O LO (0 O O O O o o O O O O O O V O O I V O O 6 O O O • O O co O O O O p O 0. O - O O CO O O O O O O O O o o O O o O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lf) O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lf) 0 0 LO O 0 N O O O 0 O O O O O O O O N O O q O O O O O O O O O O O V O O Lf) O N O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O V O O O CO N c C E OLu c 0 U w 4) E N T E N co m 0 O cn m O (9 T <0 Y O O Q) c 7 c = C > co 580 N 0 0 CO CO 0 I N O I N O 0 0 co 0 I 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N z H N 0 U N 0 0 z 0 U m H N 2 a N a w N a 1- d 0 0) 0 U X 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 I I O O I O O I O O I O O I O O O O M O 0 O O I O 0 O O O O I co CO CO 0 CO N O I N O DO O O I CO W 0) O 0) O N O c")CD CO N O I N O 0 0 co I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O O 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O I I I O I I O Io O I I O O O O O O O O O I N I o o o o I o o I o o 0 0 0 0 I I I o I o I o I I o I o o I o o 0 0 0 0 I 10 0 N 0 N 0 0 O 0 I I O O I O O O O O O I CO 0 CO 0 0)co I O I O O O O cdo I cO o (0 o o I N 0 I COO O O . O O O a> E O Q a) T X co c up 0 co ow 0 C o X co 2 O O I O O I O O I C C C -0 O N a co a co O ) O O E 0 To O E ) 4) c L > coL c C O L ow 0 ao ow ow < ow ow 0 581 CO CO CO - 0 LC) h co co O N 0 0) 1- O CO 0 CO I"- O O O O O O O 0 O O LO O I co 00 O N 0 0 CO LC) O LO O N- LO O CON CD O N O O N O O O O I O O O M N O N N O O - O N M 0 N (O O CO CO O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O CO N I-- • 0 CV. LS 0 I O 0) (0 0) W V 0) h • 0 I� { O co coO 0) 0 M) Lf) • O M LO O I co 00 O CO N h L0 - I-- O) CO 'Cr Cr) I- V O I-- V O h 0 CO CO 0 CV. LS O o rn - o LO o O O M LO C;I CO CO o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L0 L0 0 L0 L0 0 L0 0 h 00 0 00 co O co co O co O O O N O N O O O O I O O O CO0 CO 0 LO O CO CO0 0) CC 0 t` 0 0 N O N O O O O I O O O O N O O N O O I- O O O O N O 0 N O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O - 0 - 0 N CO O CO CO 0 CO4 6 O - v O O I O O O - 4 O O COO I O O O O N O 0 N O O I- O O O 0 N O O N O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O - O O O O V O O O O - O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O I O O O V 0 0 Ca O LO CO 0 - 0 0 N o-i O M 0 O V 0 N N O C) O L0 O 00 O C) LO (0 CO 0 N O I N O O I� o o I` CO 0 LO 0 0 LO O O CO LO O N N O N O (0 O I 0 0 O CO 0 0 CO O 0 CO 0 O) CO 0 0 V O CO V O CO - O N O O 140 O O 4 O O O O I O O O (Li 0) 0) N 0) 0) E Y O C N 1) O C N ) O C 03 N O C T X 'O X 'O > 'O i D 2 0 2 0 a) a5 > � 0 aa)) co C 0 a5 0o) 5 > = 0 > = <0 > = < > _ 3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 m 0 N 0 w N a 1- 0 0 0 O 0 N 0 0 0 X 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 J I I N ▪ E LXO D2 0 0cn (0 r- N 582 0 N O co O Ico O 1 CO 0 6) N 0 I O CO Ln Ln 0 N 0 N 0 0 Q 0 CO LC) 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O V N O Lc) O O O O O O I V O 1 1 O N O I O O_ O O O O O O O CO 6) O CO O N O CO M O N O M O O O O I O O I 00 co N co O IcoO I M N O N (O O 1 O O O CO N h V 0 O 1 O CO N CO h 0 CO N O 1 co O I O I 1 N— x— O I N CO O 0) 6) 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ln 0 V O O O Q O Ln Ln 0 in O O O O O O O O 00 co O 00 O O 1 O O 1 O O I V O 1 1 N '— O 1 N O O O O Lf) CO 0 Ln I O I O I O I O I N O I co O Ln 0 71"O O O O O N O 0 CO O O 0 O 0 0 O O O N O O N O O O O O O I V O I O O O I O Ln 0 O O Q O O O 1 O O I V O I I O cocNi O V O I O IcNi N O Ln 0 r O O O O 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O N 0 O 1 O O O O O O v O 1 1 O O O 1 O Ln 0 N 0 N 0 0 Q O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O I O O 1 1 O O O 1 O M O CO O 6) O f— O 0 0 O O O v O I co co. O O Lc) co O 1 Ln O O (CO O O O N O O O O O N O 0 M 0 CO O CO 0 CO 0 0 0 CO 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O co O O O O O O I O O 1 Lf) O O 1 4 C C C C 0) o f m o f m o o f m m o 0 a) a) a) . o °) .0- X IX .°- : 0-5 cn Y 2 � .Q : Y m � .Q : � X > 583 w o o0� 0w 0. ¢o 0w 0w < ow 0w o ou) — > = o— CO LO O M CO h CO- O O O O O O I LO O I CO co O a) N 0 0 Ln O V O O O I N O LC) 0 N N O I� LO O CO N O h O O O I O O O I O O O 0 0 CO 0� N O O CDO O O I O O O I O O O (0 co - O) 71-O O a - O Lco c O I M LO O I coO O LO CO V v o ti N- O o o O L O d7 O O O O O I M LO O I CO co O I I I I I I I I I I LO 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 Cr) V O O O O I� co O O O O O O M O CS) CO CO 0 0r O 0 O I O O O I O O O O r- O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O M 0 O V N O V O V O I O O O N CO 0 O CO O I � � M LO 0 f� N O O O N 0 CDO 0 0 O O O O I O O O I O O O O O V O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O I O O O I O O O V 0 N N O CO O LO 0 CC; O O O LO O O O I N O I N O O o o h co o LO o 0 O COLO O N N N 0 I O O I 0 0 V 0 COOCO 0 N O O O O I — O O I O O O O c co N O C To N O C @ i c c 0 2 < 0 > 2 < a) 2 3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 0 Z CV 0 m 0 10 N a 1- 0 d 0 O w O_ a N 0 co 0 0 x 0 Z O O 0 0 O 0 I O 0 ti M O M O N O I N O M O M 0 N O I N O V 0 7 O CO CO CD O O I O O co ICO CD O O I O O N O 0 I I O I I O X co 2 M O M O O O O I O rn O O CCOO 0 O O C -0 a) C s O w 0 U I CS) O 0 O O CO 0 O O 584 CO O O o N- N- CO CO 0) 0 N CO O O LO M O 0 0 O v CO V CO 0 CS) O M M N— O O O ti O co O O O f) O N O O N O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O LO O O V O 0 CO CO CO N 00 O O CO O O O O O f) O O CO CO co N 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O CO LO 0 71- N O N M N O N CO O O O O CO 0 N O V O O O O N O O I 1 1 LO LC) 0 CO CO O N N O LC) CO 0 CO O N O 0 N O O N O O O O 6) O Q. Q. 71. 0 O N O O N O O O O N LO 0 M O O LO CO 0 LO N 0 O Cr) COO CS) 00 O co V O 4 O O LO 0 LO N O O N O 6) N 0 N Cfl O O O O LO CO N- N LC7 N 0 O x— O LC) co f- N LC) N 0 In O N— O 1 1 I LO LO 0 00 CO 0 N — O LC) co O co O O O O N O 0 N 0 O O O 6) O CV O O O 0 N 0 O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O CO 0 O 00 O M CC) 0 N 'Cr 0 4 O O V O CO CO CO O O O O O) t O co O O O O O O CO V CO CO N CO O N- co O O I co 00 O ,— CO V CO CO N CO 0 CO 7 O M W O O O O O O co N O O I O 0 0 O CO O N O O O 0 LO 0 0 O — O O O O O I O O LO O LC) O O CO M O O) 0 0 LO 0) O 00 N O LO O LO 0 0 O x— O O O O O I O O co O O O O O O O O O I CO LO 0 N F O CO LO 0 0 O 00 (fl � O V O O I O O V O LO O CO O LO M O O I O CO CO fll O <0 C f6 ) O d OW a) O O.. O O E x Y O O C C0 8 O O W C m 2 0) O) (a T < N O C To N c ,_ 2 Q 585 m N 0 0 LC) O O • O I N O Lf) o O O - O O f- O c.1 O I I N O O O 3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z 0 0 N a w 2 1- 0 2 0 a w 0 2 a N 0 co 0 0 0 Z 0 C 0 co 0 J Ln O N O N O - 0 O O O O I O O O O OV 0 O O O 0 hCD O - O O o I o o I o o o 0 0)0) 0 N CO O CO I N O O N O N OCO a) co 0 cc O O N O I N O O N I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I • O • O M 0CD CD CD CD - 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O I Io O I I O I I O I O co CD CD O O I O O O O O O N co I I o• cc • cc O I o 0 I o o o 0 I I O O O O O I I O I I O I O O O I O O I O O O O LC) 0 N O N O N O O O O O I O0 O I O OI V O O O CO O CO O N 0 O co O I O O 0 CDO CD • CDV CD • CD O O I N O I O O O CO 00 CO N 00 CO CO 0 O O O 1 O O 1 O O I O O a) C C C as (11 X i 9- •� �; ° x • .2- @ >, (° . a) CCSE- N co = �° • .�- 'y 586 a) U C LO m u) 0 a) U C 7 N U 2 Ow O" 0 2 Ow O" <0 Ow O" < Ow O" o r` LO _ COC) V r� CO CO CO 0) O I— 0) 0 dr CO 0 0) CO 0 O O O co 00 O I O I r O I 00 r 0 r r 0 0 N 0 0 N O LO N O CO CO O O N O N O I O N O I O r O O O O N CCOO 0 . dr 0 0 O 0 O O O I O O O O O O CrO O_ N V CLO CO OO 00 0) N O LO N O N CO o h 0) O O 10 O co O co h O O I r O O l r r o co O r-- N O I1.6O LO CO h N LO N r 0O V CO O N CO 0 O CO O I co - O CO 0) 0) O r r O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LC) LO 0 LO LC) 0 CO 0 t` N— 0 CO COO CO CO 0 0) 0 M 0 N r O I N O I N O O O O O LC) CO 0 LO CO 0 0 O N- LO 0 CO 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 M O N r O I N r O I N O O O O O O N O O N O 0 O 0 CO O O N O O N O O O 0 0 0 O O O I O O O I O O O O O O 0 0 0) LO 0 n CO 0 N oo N o I 00 o LC) LO 0 0 0) 0 O O dr 0 CV G. O LOO 0 00 LrCO f ) LC)O 1' 0 CO C O r O O O N O O N O O LO O 0 CO 0 O N 0 0 N O 0 r O 0 0 0 O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 00 0 0 O O r O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O I O O O O O O N LO 0 CO O LO CO 0 LO N 0 00 O r 0 h CO O CO LO 0 0 LO 0 O h O O O V 00 O I CO LO 0 LO r 0 M_ N O 01 O r O 1' 0 Cfl M O N r O CO LO 0 V O O N O 0) CO O M CO 0 0 dr 0 LO CO 0 CO V O N V 0 0 CO 0 LO 0 0 I V O O I 4 O O I M O O O O O N 0 E N O al a) O m 0 O C <6 U) O W e 0 CV0 0 a) > .3 0 a) c 0 CD CZ0 ❑CO > _ ❑ > = Q❑ > _ ¢ > Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 w N 2 a 1- 0 2 a ❑ a w 2 a N 0 Cn 0 0 0 Z 0 C 0 U 0 J I I 0 0) c> D X L9 0 ❑ w CO 0 587 Lc) O O O N O LO CO N O O 1 N O 1 co co N M CO O LI) O I LO 0 N O N O O O 0 O LC) O O O O O O O O O -1-N CD Lf) O O O O O O I V O 1 1 O N O I O O O O O f� O O 6) N O 6) O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O CO O I� I"- N0 CO_ 0) 0 0) 0 0 CO 0 N CS) 0 CO COO COO I— O co O N O N O O I N CM O I O O M O N O I� N co O O O N O O I N O I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O co O co O LO LO O Ln CO O CO O V O O O co co co O O O O O O I O O I N O I N O O O O LO CO O Lf) I O I O O O I N O I CO 12, co co O O O O O O I 6) O 6) O 6)CO O O O O O I O O O N O O O N O O O O O I O O cocNi O V O o cNiO 1 0 I O I O I N O 6) O 6) O 6) O 6) O 0 N O O CO O CO O V O O O O N O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O LO 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O O O I O O VV O 1 1 O O O 1 O CO co o 00 co 00 N O O O O ti O O O O O I O I v 0) O 0) O Ln O O O - t O 0) M CD CD CD O M O co O I N O I N ~ O I M O M N O N O 4 O 00 O O 00 O I-- O 0 CO O V O O O N 'I'O O O O O O O O I O O 1 1 4 O O 1 4 C C C C 0) o f m o f a)o f m m o 0 a) m a� — 1) o °) !Z' 9_ >. x IY .c)- Y 2 >. Et .a Y m .Q r >; E x 7 T t x 588 Cr C Ow o o� ow 02. ¢o Ow ow ¢ ow ow o ocn _ > = o— 0 LO 0) LO N (O - 0 CO - 0 L O N - O CO O I M .— O I •71- W O O O a) N 0 0 LO LO O O O O O O N O I N O LO O v O CO N- O N O CO CO O 0 N O N O I O O I O O O CO 0 0')v 0 CO 0 0 O 0 I o 0 o I o 0 0 CO N 0 LO CO V OD • O0 I"- CO 0 LO O co N.:, O co O I ,_ O I O CO N 0 LO CO OO ti co cm O O • O I co O I ,— O I I I I I I I I I I LO O CO 0 • O CO 0 O O O N O O M O O O • O O co O • O I N O O I� 0 CO N O O O COLO — O O O O N O O N O 0 Cr) O O O I O O O I O O O CO 0 LO O O ✓ O I W M O N 0 N 0 O O 6) O O LO O O O N O (O 0 LO 0 O O I� M O L LO O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O lO o cd ° - O LOO 0 L LO O 0 co in I LO 0 O N 0)O V CO O N f O I O N O CO 0 CO V 0 CO CO O LO O O O O I N O O I O O O O O O O C O N O C To N O -O = @ T i -O C i - O C o > = 0 > = < < O C a) 2 3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 00 0 N a w N a 1- O d 0 O w O_ a N 0 co 0 0 X 0 Z 0 0 0 O O 0 I 0 0 Cr) 0 O) O CO 0 M O N O I N O M O M O N O I (V O • O r O O O I O O CO CD O O I O O M cm CD O O I O O O O I I O I I o I O0 CD O I O O X a) 2 co O M O • O O - O I - O CO 0 CO CD CD N O I N O CO N O O O C • a) C • s O w 0 U N O O O 589 V CO N () M N cc) M CO LO O O LO CO - O O � O LO 0) LO N CO - O I` N O I Cc) OO O CO O O CO O co O O N O O N O LO CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO CO O O O O O O O 00 (0 N O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO LO O N 0 • N 0) N O - O O O O O CO Cr) . 0 N 0) 0 N O O CO O) V 0 N Cr) 0 N d O x— O I I I LO LO O co co O N O LO M O 00 O N O O N O O N O O O O - 0) O O O - 71. 0 O N O O N O O O O t - O I� O O O O CO 0 N V O 4 O O - LO 0 L0 N O O N O O) N O N CO O O O O O N CO O) 0 � - � O CO - N M 0) 0 ' � O O I I I LO LO O CO CO 0 c — O LC) M O CO O O O O N O O N O O O O 0 N 0 ✓ N O O O O O - O O - O O O O 0) co O • O) ✓ N- O O) L0 O co 0 M O I- (0 O 0 'Cr 0 4 O O ✓ O CO CO CO O O O O O O) t O co - V O O O O O O 0 O O I I CO LC) M co O O O O co N O O I O - 0 0 I- O CO O M N O O O O LO O O O — O O O O O I O O LO O LO O O 00 M O 0) 0 0 LO 6) O 00 N O O Ln O O O O O O O O I O O 00 0 O O O O O O O O I O CO 0 LO • LO O LO CO LO O I In 0) O) 0 N ci V O O O I O CO V 0 N CO M O LO N O O I O CO CO CM 0 O � T <0 C co N d O W 0 C O.. c 0 C O U E x cTs 0�� 0 O O C >, X = C CO § 0 O O 0) C 0 2 0 O) (a < 0 O 0 0 0 i C i C C 2 Q 590 O co_ O O I*-- 0 N O o O O 0 0 0 (O O h O O m o f- 0 I I f— O O O O (0 O O O O 0 O O O co 0 L o 0 0 co O Lf) O O O C) O O O O O 0 O o O O N 0 O 0 0 co o co O N O m O 0 0 0 0 `0 C C >CZ _ 3.13. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z 0 0 0 N a w N 0- 0 a w 0 0 O 0 0 Z c 0 0 0 J CO CO O O O O O V O N O I N O N 0 O 0 O N O N O O O O I I O O I O O I O O I O O O O O hCD CD CD O O 0 o I o 0 I o 0 0 0 ti ti co co 0 0 N O I N O O N O N- N O 1 N O O I N O I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I coo O coo O V O co I O O I O O I O O O O O O O O I I I O I I O I I O I I O co co O O I O O I O O O O M I ICO CO 71- o o I o o I o o I o 0 O O O O I I O I I O I I O I I o O O I O O O O o O LO 0 N 0 N CD C)O 0 I I O O 1 O O I O O I O O CO O CO 0 N 0 I— 0 I I O ICD O co O O w o rn o (0 o o I I °r O I O I CD O N CD I I 0 o 1 o o 1 o 0 I 0 0 c E E E. 0 -0 m o Q m o Q m o' o Q m m o Q a) C E a5 7 C U C f0 7 C 0 a) _ C 0 C 7 Cl U591 0 0w� ow 0" 0 2 ow 0" <0 ow 0" < Cro0" 6) N 0) CD CV O I O 0) LO CO CO N 0 CO 0) 0 LO 0 0 O O coco., O r .- O I 00 ,O O 1 ,- ,- O N 0 0 0 CO O LO O V CO O CO LO O O N O I O N O I O O O O O CA 0 O 0 CO 4 0 M f- 0 CO O N CO 0 c- 4 0 O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O CO N LOO COO COO CO N N I,- 0 LO O O O 6 O co h O O I ,- O I 00 �O O 1 ,- O CO CO N LO O LO 0 O O 6) CO CO LO O 4 O O I 6) CO N v v O O O 00 O N h M N O N O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO LO 0 LO LO O N M O N- f- 0 CO CO O c0 CO 0 O O O M x- 0 N O I N O I N O O O O O LC) CO 0 LO M 0 CO O CO O I I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 O CO O C CO CD V O V O O) 0 Q O 4 0 0 CO O M O N O O O O O 0 O 0 CO 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O CO 0 o LL LC)o I M M O O O CV G. O CO 00 0 I"- LMf) 0 O (xN O O O I o 0 o I o 0 0 o '- o 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O O O O 0 00 O 0 O O O O ' O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O 0o CO 0 N I- O O CO 0) 0 h O I v O I N LO O LO O O 0 O 0 N CO N O M O V N 0 O N O O I- O v CO 0 0 '4 0 CO 0 V O O) V 0 CO CO O LO O O I 4 O O I M O O I N O O O O O N •� X i 'O T X i 'O EL3 >, i 'O i (6 7 0 N cts o =� - 0 > .� 0 N NC 0 C N 0 ❑CO > _ ❑ > = <0 > _ < > 3.14. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m w N 2 a 1- O 2 a ❑ a w 2 a N 0 Cn 0 0 X 0 Z 0 Co CO1.0 I I 0) '' E X 592 c La D .s 0 ❑ CO CO CD CD LO N O O (N° O N O ' N N Lf) I Lf) O N 0 N 0 0 00 0 CO O O O O O O O I OV O 1 1 O N O 1 O O O O O O O co O co O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O CO CO I� n N LO CO O O O O O O 0 LO 0 CO 0 M N N O N O O I N CO CS;I O CO CO O N LO CO O O (5) O O O O LO O COO M N N O N O O I O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O co O O U) LO O Lf) O O O O O co O O a0 co (b O O O O O O I O O I N O I N O O O O LO CO Oco o Lf) I O I O I O I O I ( O I co CO V O O CO O O O N O 0 CO O O 0 O 0 0 0 O O N O O CO O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O O co O O O O O O I O O O cocNi O V O O I O I O I O I O 71"O O CO O O 0 N O O O 0 O O O O O O O N 0 O O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O LO O N O N O N O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O — 0 O O O O O O O I V O O O O I O CO 0 CO O N O f- O CO CO 0 N o co co O co O (0 O I- O O (0 O 0 N O N O O I O O N O I (N.; O 0 COO 0 OO aN CO IO V O) O O O O O O O O 1 1 4 O O I M C C C C (U o f m o f m (� o f , m o 0 a) m a) m o •°) 8 w o 0 0� 0w 0. ¢o 0w 0w ¢ ow ow o ocn _ > = o— LC) Co N 0 CO 6) 0 LO O O O O M CO., O O I co' ,- O I ,— ,— O a) N 0 0 LO LO O O O O O V O N O I N O LC) O V CO 0 CO Lf) O O M LO O O N N O I O O I O O O 0 CO t O CO f— O CO O A— V O O O O O O I O O O I O O O 0) CT LO 0 V 0 CO N 0 O O O co N O co O I ,- O I O 0) O) LOO CO V O M N LCD O O I co O I O I I I I I I I I I I 0 COO CD 0')O COt` 0 O I N O O I O O O CO Lf) 0 0 CO 0 M O O I N O O I O O O N O 00 A- 0 0 O O O O I O O O I O O O M O CO O O Lf) Lf) O O O I W M O I O O O O CO O O LO LO 4 O M N O I O O N O N 0 O O O A— O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 CO 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I"- 0 0 CO CA 0 CO O «5 V O N O O I� O N LO O I LO O O CO 0 CO LC) 0 N N- 0 O N O - N O A— 0 I N f 0 I O N O V 0 co co O LO O O O O I N O O I O O O O O C co > 2 < 0 Y O) -Op � 7 aa) @ c a) > = < > I) C 3.15. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 Ln N a 0 O 2 d W O_ 2 a N 0 co 0 0 x 0 Z I I O O I0 CD O O O O 0 O 0 O I O O 0) ti O) O O) O co O M O N O I N O N. rn O rn O M O M O N O I N O CO CO O O I O O CO co cm cm O O I O O co co co O O I O O CO CO O O I O O CD I O O I O O X 2 M O M O O O O I O CT 00 O I O) 00 O O O CO O CO 0 O O I O O C C -0 a) -0 a) O E N O E a) 9- 1' >. N X c . - Y 0w0-5 co 0" 0 2 0w 0 594 CO CO N O O rn v CO CO O 0 O o CO NNCO 0 O O Cn 0 rn 0 CS) 0 O O O M O O O ti O co O O O O O N O O N O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO CO 00 O O CO O O O O CT O O CO CO CD N 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0) 0 0 - Ln O O O O CO CO N CO 00 - 4O O O M CC) N CO CO - O ' � O O I I I LC) d" 0 CO N 0 N N O Cf) M O 00 O N O 0 CV - CO O - . O - 6) O Q. Q. - 71- O O N O O N O O O O C4 O N cc; Q. N O CO CO 0 CO CO 0 M O O 00 co O O O N O CO 0 0 N LC) 0 O O O O o co N- r- O - O O 4 C. ,— - O I I I Cn dt 0 00 N O N O CC) CO') 0 CO 0 N O - O) O N O - 71- o 0 N 0 O N O O O O 0 - 0 0 - 0 O O O O CO 0 O M I— 0 - 0 0 N N O M 0 - CC) 0 CO CO 0 M O O N 0 CO CO CO O O O O O co co O c') - co O O O O O I O N O) N CO CO 0 0 W p O I COf� O x— N O N CO CO 0 0 O p O I Cl. I� O • 00 O O 00 O co N O O I O - 0 0 I� O CO O CO N O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O I O N Cn 0 CC) O O CO CO O 0) 0 0 • CS)O I 00 N O o Ln O O O O O O O O I O O 00 O O O O O O O O O I O O • O N O O N CO O V CO 0) 0 O O - O Cf) LD 0 CO CO N O O O O I O CO co M N O T <0 C -0 N d OW a) O O O O E x a U) Y O O C W C m 2 U) O) (a T < 4) • O 0 0 4) c 0 2 Q 595 LC) O h O O co O N O O O co O o O O 0 0 f— O 0 O O 0 CEO O O I I c0 O - 0 O O LC) 0 • O O O - O O O O O O O LC) O O 0 M O co O o O C) O O O O O - O o O O O co 0 O O O o - O N O LC) 0 0 O O O 0 C > 3.16. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z 0 w 0- w 0 N 0 0 0 0 Z 0 C 0 U 0 J Lc) w O O - O N O I O I K1 N O O O Ln O N O N O - 0 O O O O I O O O O OV 0 O O O 0 hCD O - O O o I o o I o o o 0 0) N M O I N O O CO N O N O a) co 0 cc O O N O I N O O N I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I • O • O M 0CD CD CD CD - 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O I Io O I I O I I O I O 0 CD CD O O I O O O O O O M co I I o• cc • cc O I o 0 I o o o 0 I I 0 E n ._ E co 0 u) O O O O O I I O I I O I O O O I O O I O O O O Ln 0 N O N O N O O O O O I O0 O I O OI V O O O M O M O N0 O co O I O O 0 CDO CD • CDV CDN O N O I N O I O O O CO 0 N 0 CO - 0 0 O O O 1 O O 1 O O I O O a) C C C co (11 cu X .o fl is • .� @ >, (° 9- c c° • .2- 596 0 7 (n U C LO m U a) o C 7 N U 2 Ow O" 0 2 Ow O" <0 Ow O" < Ow O"". CO LCD O V ON CO LO OS) LO V CO O O O 0 LC) 0 co 0 I 0 I r 0 1 coO r r 0 N 0 0 O CO O O C) CDV N CD CD LO71- O O N O I O N O I O r O LO N O O O c) O o LO O O O O M LO N CO O 0 Ir O N O� 0 00M 0 CO COO 0 O O O I O O O O O O 0 CO N 0)- 0 W 0 CO CO 0) O O 4 0 coO co co., O O I O 1 r r O N C(O Or CO (75) N CO r O rn r O CO I o q I 00 CD N- O M CO O O r r O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO 0 LO 0 CO 0 f— CO 0 CO N O CO N O O CO 0 M r 0 N r O I N O I N O O O O O LO CO 0 LO CO 0 CO O CO 0 I N r O I N r O 0 CO O CO r 0 N O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O r O O r O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O) 0 Q O 0 0 O V O O) In o n CO o Lf) O O LO LO O I O M O r O O O O Or) 0 O 10 LO O t O O N O r O O O N O O N O 0 LO 0 0 CO 0 O N 0 0 N O O r O 0 0 0 O O O I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O r O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O N O o V Q O N O O) O h O M I- O N LO O v O O CO 0 O N 0 0 0 N N- O M 0 co o co o-)O M t` O r r O O N 0 CO CO O LO 0 LO LID 0 CO LO 0 CO CO O CO CO 0 CO N O V 0 0 I I M O O I M O O I N O O O O O N E N O .� N N O .0 ) O 0 C6 U) O 0 •� E X i 'O T X i 'O >, i 'O i as 7 2 O N CO 2 O a m > rLo O N C O C N o ❑CO > _ ❑ > = <0 > _ < > _ 3.17. Building Construction (2030) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m w N 2 a 1- 0 2 a ❑ a w 2 a N 0 Cn 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 O U 0 J CO 0 V I I 4) ''E" 597 c La D 2 0 ❑co Cr) N- 0 LC) Lf) CO C) CO v O 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO 0 O) O 4 O 1� O O 4 O 6 N O N O O I N O I O I Lf) O N O N O O C� 0 0 CO 0 CO O O O O O O O O .— O O V N O O O O O I V O 1 1 O N O 1 O CO O 0 M O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O 0 N N co0 O co N....O CO O CC/ CO N- O 0')N O N O O I N C;I 1— O I 6 O N N I,- 1-- N co V O) O) O O) O O co CO N 0 N- M O Cy)O 1� O O O co-O 6 N O N O O I N O I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O co O co O CO O Lf) co O CO O V O O O O N O CO C;O O O O O I O O I N O I N O O O O Lo ) O Lf) I O I O O O C O I co CO V O O CO 0 CO 0 O O O CO 0 CO 0 O O O O — O O V O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O O) 0 O) 0 O) 0 O) 0 0 0 O O O O O O I O O I N— v 0 o cNi O 1 0 I O I O I O co O O O O I O O I O O O I O Lf) 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O O O O I OV O 1 1 O O O 1 O M 0 M O N O Cfl O 0 0 I� O O O O v 0 I M c0 00 0 Cr). O Lf) O CO O Cr) Lfl 0 O O O co O I N O I N O I N T o O O co O O I co o O O I c O O 1 M C C C co a co (0 E cl) 6) O O a) (6 O ) O c N X ct . Y 12 E.C- . Y M Ct." . Y E X T X 598 0w 0. ¢o ow 0w < ow ow o ocn _ > = o � N 0) Is- LO CO O 0 CY) 0 0) N 0 O) 0 O O I� O N N O O I O— O I ,— O a) N 0 0 O O Lc) O O O N O I N O O N o O O O 0 0 CO CO 0 CO CO 0 LO O CO O O O O O O I O O O I O O O lO LO O LO f� O CO N 0 CO N N 0 N CO O N CO O O I t` 0) O I 0 LO O CO ON O CCO N O COO h CO O N CO.. O O I- 0) O IO I I I I I I I I I I 0 00 O I- co O N 0 cm co O co 1- O I N O O I O O O CY) 0 0 0 h LO 0 O O 00 O M 0 O I N O O I O O O O 0 CO 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 0 LO CO 0 V O O N O O LO O O 4 O I O N 0 _ o 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O 6) 0 LO CO 0 CO N 0 O lf) O O CO O) 0 h O I N Ln O I V O O LO 0 O CO O 0 f O I 0 N 0 M 0 LCO O N 0 V 0 0 O O I N O O I O O O a) O O) v) o c O N O C To N O C @ i -0 2 < 0 > 2 < > 2 3.18. Building Construction (2030) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 0 Ln N a 1- 0 d 0 O W O_ 0- 0 co 0 0 x 0 Z O 0 0 0 O 0 I 0 O 0)) 0 O) O M 0 C O N O I N 0 rn O rn O M O M 0 N O I CV O O r 0 O O I O O CO ICD CD CD 71- 0 0 I 0 0 I 0cm 0 I 0 0 cm I 0 0 I 0 0 X co 2 M O M O O O O I O CO 0 CO N O N o 0 O 1 O O C C 73 a) -O a) O E N O E a) 9- 1' >. N X c ,O_ 1i c co 0w 0" 0 2 0w 0 599 CO N O O co I- CY) CO (fl C) O O s- — O O N O) ▪ co O O V O O Cr) (n O O O) N O O) I� O O N r- O O O CO O O CO O O CO O C) O O N O O N O LO CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 CO CO O 0 O O O O C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 CO 0 - O O O N O (0 0 0 - LO O O O O O N CO (C c) O O O O N CO . CO I- 0 C) O O I I I CO d' 0 CO N O N N O LO C) O N O N O O - O O co) O O O O O O co LO O N Ln N O CO CO O I- C) O M O O O co O O O O N O CO 0 0 N LO O O O O N LO O) LO h f— O O co- O - O N LO CT LO f- N- 0 O COO N- O I I I LO O O N O N O LC) C) O co O O ' O • 0 0 CV N O • V 0 6) 0 CV Q. Q. O 0 - O O O O O O O O 0 - 0 O O O f- 6) 0 CO 7 Q. C) I- O O C) O O Cfl co O O N 0 CO CO O C) O O I� LO O O V O O O O O O co O co - co O O O O I O - 0 LO CO N O CO I� CO O I N f� C) O - 0 CO N O h co O I� 6) O LC) O • co O I-- O co O co N O O I O - 0 0 I� O CO O CO N O O O O co O O O O O O O O O I O O) co O LO W O O N O 0) 0 0 LO 0) O O N O o co O O O O O O O O O I O O co O O O O O O O O O I O LO CO O (O C)O CO N LO CDI 4 O co CO LO 0 LO N O N O O I O CO CO V N O T <0 a) O O.. O O E x cTs 0W� Y O O C CC >, - C_ co 0 W C m 2 U) O) (a T < N • O 0 (3 N c 0 2 Q 600 0 O O h O O N O O O co O O O O 0 c0 N O O O O co N O 0. O I I c0 O - O O O LC) 0 • O O O - O O O O O O LC) 0 O 0 M O co O O O > 0 O 0 - O O O O O N O O O O O 0) O O O O O LC) O 0 0 O 0 `0 °7 > • CZ 3.19. Building Construction (2031) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z 0 H N a 0 N a w N 1- 0 a 0 a w 0 N 0 O 0 0 Z c 0 U 0 J O O O ▪ O ▪ O V O N O I N O I I N O O O O N O N O - O O O I I O O I O O I O O O O O O O O h• CD CD CD O - O O 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 l 0 0 CO CO CO - 0 0 N O I N O O N O I� N CO N O I N • O O N I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I co co Ico co co 71- O O I O O I O O O O O O O O I I O I I O I I O I O CO co co O O I O O I O O O 0 I Ico co co 71- O 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 l 0 0 I I 47) m E (n .-' E c O 0u) O O O 0 O I I O I I O I o O 0 I 0 0 0 0 l OD OD CO CO 'St 0 0 LO 0 N 0 N CD O O O O O 1 O O 1 O O I O O CO O CO ▪ O N0 • O co - O I O O O 0) 0cci 0)(xi 0 (0 CDv o O I O I O N O O 0 1 0 • 0 1 0 0 10 0 a) ( E. -0 a) -o 0 0 a) -0 a) X � .fl � � > is � .� � @ >, (Y 9- � � c ct •-- � � 601 0 7 (n 0 C_ f0 C u) U a) U C 7 U 2 O w O" o 2 O w O" < 0 O w O" < O w O .0". 0 o w CO _ C) V r--N C) I - LC) 0) O CO 0) 0 CO L 0 h O O O co - CO O N CO., O O I O I N- O O0 0 0 0 CO O O CO 0 f- LO 0 V 0 O ON O I O ON O I O O O O O OLC)0 N LO 0 '- M 0 O CO 0 L O O O I O O O I O O O O O O 4 _ f'- 0")V N h () r N 0 (0 CO 0 LO 0 0 (0 t` O O O co LO O N LO O 1- O I O— r- O I O) O '— O ti f- 0) N r- co V N O CO CO O LO 0 0 CO I- O C) O O co cosN L!) 0 I O O I 0) O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO 1" 0 LO 1" 0 CO 0 f- CO 0 CO N O 00 N O O CO 0 C) N- 0 N O I N O I N O O O O O LO CO 0 LO CO 0 co O co O N O I N O 0 CO 0 CO N- O N O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O O O I O O O I O O O O O O 0 0 N V 0 0) 0 O O 1- 0 0 0 N O V 0 LOO 00) 0 LCLC) LLC) o I o0 N O '- O O G. 0 LOO 0 00 10 CO 0 CV 1" 0 I 00 N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 O O O f O O O O O O O I o 0 o I o 0 o I 0 0 o o 0 0 O O O O 0 00 O O 0 O O 0 ' O O O 0 O O 0 I O O O I O O O I O O O O O O h O CO LO 0 () 0) 0 V 0) 0 O O I cocc CO O I N 0 71" CO CD v O O o 0) 0 N N 0 CO 0 I� � O N O 0 O 0 0 O Ch O O - O O N O CO CO O 0) V O N LO 0 LO O LO COO V CO 0 N O V 0 0 I CO O O I r) O O I N O O O O O •� E x i O T x i -0 >, i 'O i e 0 .' 0 2 0 m >: 3 0 m c 0 0 ❑cn > _ ❑ > _ ¢❑ > _ ¢ > _ 3.20. Building Construction (2031) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m w N 2 0 1- 0 2 a ❑ 0 w 2 0 N 0 0 0 0 Z 0 C O U 0 J (0 r- LO I I 4) E x 602 c 0 D 0 ❑ 0 0 O) Lc) Lf) CO co V O O O O O O L0 O 0 CO O O I— O O Oco- 6 (.O N O 1 ,— O I N O I O I Lf) 0 N 0 N 0 0 00 0 CO 0 0 O O O O O O I O O O ON O 1 O O O O O O O N- LC) CD O CO O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O 4 0) N O) V O O O O O co O V N 0 Cfl COO COO N-.O co co 6 N O N O O I N 0 I O I r— O) O M O N O L� 0 0 0 N O O I N O f.-- V r— 0) .4 V N 0 (0 o 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O co O O LC) 0 Lf) O O O O O O I O O CO N O CO CD O O O O O O I N O I N O O O O LL) M O LC) I O I O I O I O I N O I co O 0 0 CO 0 0 0 - 0 O (O O O 0 0 O O O O O — O coV O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O O M O O O O O O I O O 0 0 N O V 0 cNiO I O I O I O I N O 0 O O 0 00O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O LC) 0 N O N O N O Q O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O "- O O O O O O O O I v O 1 1 O O O 1 O CO 0 CO 0 N 0 (O 0 I- 0 CO O O O I O v (o O I co M 0 M O LC) O CO O O O) 0 h O O O O V O N O ("14 O I� N O N O O I O O I N 0 I N CO O CO 0 (O 0 CO 0 CO CO 0 0) N 0 N 0 N- 0 0 0 LC) CO 0 V O O O O O O I O O 1 CO O O 1 M C C C C N o f m o f m o f m m o a) m E 8)) `o °) 8 .o >. X ct .O- Y 12 T Q' .Q- 7 eC .Q- y T X i O >' X 603 ow 0 0� 0w 0. ¢o 0w 0w ¢ ow ow o ocn _ > = o� C N h- _ O O CO LO O O CO CT O O I N- O O I M h O N CO O O a) N 0 0 Lc) LO O O O O V O N O I N O o 1 o O O LC)O 1- CO O O O O O O I O O O I O O O N f- CO M 0 LC) 0 0 CO N- 0 O CO Lf) O N LO O I N- a) O I 0 LC) O O CO LO I� O) O CO N- O N LO) O I I I I I I I I I I O 00 O M O N O O I O O O M 0 0 0 h L) 0 0 0 CO 0 M 0 O I N O O I O O O 0 0 N O O 00 O O O O O O O rn CO O LC) 0 O M N O 6) O O Lf) 0 O O N O CD O O O O O O v 0 LO O O O N- co O L LC) O O O _ o 0 CO 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I o 0 o I o 0 0 O 0 CO 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O 0) O CO00 O 00 CO O I N 0 V O O o 0 O v o co O O O v O 0 0 o CO O CO O O f O I O N O N 0 V O O N O O I O O O O O O C O N O C 0 (0 4) O -0 =@ T i -0 =O i - O C o > = 0 > = < < C as 2 Building Construction (2032) - Unmitigated N M Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 00 Z N 0 0 00 0 10 a 0 O 2 d w o_ 2 a N 0 Co O 0 X 0 Z O O 0 0 0 0 I O 0 O co) 0 co O M O N O I C 0 rn O rn O M O M O N O I N O CO CO CD O O I O O I O 0 I 0 0 rn O rn O I o o I 0 0 O O I I O I I O ICO o o I 0 0 X co 2 M O M O O O O I O O CO O O O C -0 a) 0 E N f2 S co C = 0 w 0 ... I rn 00 O O O N 0 CO 0 O O co 604 M O O O O O O co I- Cfl CO M V 0^) O O O r— CO N LC) LO O Cc) O O O I.- 0 CO O) 0 LC) LO CO O I N f— 6) O O O ti O co O O) O O) O (NI O O N O LC) M V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 10 CO co N 00 O O CO O O O) O O) O O N 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O - 0) O O O co O) O O O O O CO O) 0 LO M CO 0 O O CO O) 0 LO CO 00 O O O I I I LO d- 0 CO N O N N O L0 M O 00 O N O O - co O - O O O O - 0) 0 Q. O - d Q. O O O O - co O - O O O O N M O (b Ln co co O - O LO CO 0 M O M O O O N O N— C) O O O CO O) 0 N O O O O N CO O) I- • 00 O O N O - O N CO O1 t- V co co 6. N O O I I I L C) 0 00 N O C 0 Ln M O a0 O O ' O • 0 0 CV N O • . O - O) 0 CV Q. Q. - 71- 0 O - O O O O O O O - O O - O O O O CO N O Cc) N O M CO O CO N O M co N O CC) d O M M O M O O I� O O M O O O O O V LO O N - CO O O O O I O CO LO M CO O LO LO N O I N • O) O CO LC) M CO O LC) Ln N O I N I� O) O N 00 O I-- O 00 O co N O O I O N O 0 I- O CO O C O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O I O - O) 0 CO O O CC) N O O C0 ▪ O) O O N O O 00 O O O O O O O O O I O O 00 O O O O O O O O O I O N V O f- O N N O I • N- O CO O Q. O O co CO LO O M N O N O O I O CO CO N O � T <0 C co ) OrY d O W a) O U O .. 0 c a) O U O .. U E x Y O CD C >, X C_ f6 0 8 O O W C 0 2 U) O) (a T < 4) • O 0 To 4) c 0 2 Q 605 0 0) O LC) O co O N O O O co O 0 0 0 0 0 N O LC) O O 0 1-0.. O I I c0 O 0 O O LC) 0 O O O O O O O o LC) O 0 0 M O L() O N O 0 0 0 0 O o O O L` O N 0 O O L) o O O LC) 0 0 O O O o c c > 3.22. Building Construction (2032) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 (NJ 0 0 0 N Z H 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 m w 0- 0 a w 0 N 0 co 0 0 0 Z 0 C 0 U 0 J In LC) M O O71- 71- O O N O O N O I N O I . O N O 0 O N O N O 0 O O O O I O O O O O 0 O O O 0 hCD O O 0 o I o o I o o o 0 O CO CO 71- N O I N O O CO N O ti 0) o rn o 0 N O I N O O N I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I ' O t O CO 0CD CD CD CD CD 0 O O I o O O O O O O O O O I Io O I I O I I O I I O CD CD O O I o O O O O O 71- co I I occ cc 0 I o 0 I o o o 0 O O O O I I O I I O I I O I I O 71- 71- cc 0 o I o o I 0 oI o 0 LC) 0 N0 O N O N O O O O O I O O I O OI O O O O M M O N 0 O co O I O O 0 O O O O V CDN CD N O I N O I O O O CO N 0 CO 0 N 00 CO CO N- 0 0 0 I I O O 1 O O 1 O O I O O C C C C 0 0 C_ 0 C u) U a) r U C 7 U 2 O w O" o 2 O w O" < 0 O w O" < O w O " 0 CO COCO CO 0 LO V O 00)) O LO 0CO 0) 0 O O LO 0 O N LO O I O I O I O O O N 0 0 O N O O N O N- n O CO O O O I O O I O O O O O 0 0) 0 O O O O CO O 0 LO CO.. CO 0 .,- O I 0 OD MO 0N '- O CO O O O I O O O O O O N M CO CO CO 0 CO LO0 LO N 0 LO N O N LO O I h O) O I O 00 0) N M OCO M CO0 V CCO CDC00 0 O LO N O O O LO N N LO O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO 0 LO t O N CO 0 f- CO 0 CO N 0 00 N O O CO 0 M N- 0 N O I N O I N O O O O O COLCD 0 CO 0 LO O COCOO 0 CO 0 M Lf) O N O I N O I N O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O I O O O I O O O O O O 0 0 CV N O - 0 0) 0 Q O 71- 0 0 0 (V ("! O - 0 0) 0 v 0 CO 0) O LO LO O I o0 N O O O CO O O CO CT O Lrf) LC)0 0 CC) N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 o o o f o o O O o o O I o 0 o I o 0 o I o 0 o o 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O N CO 0 LO O co 0 0 N 0 CO O O CO N O N V 0 V N- 0 Cr) t` O M h O N CO 0 CO CO O N v 0 I v O O CO co o N N O I co O OM 0 O O O O O LO CO O CO V O CO LO O CO LO 0 V CO O CO CO 0 CO N O V 0 0 I I CO O O I M O O I N O O O O O a)E N O .� 0 O .0 0 O C To O W •� E x i 'O T x ) 'O > i -0 i as 7 2 O N N CO O a m > .� O N C O CI) N o ❑cn > _ ❑ > = Q❑ > _ ¢ > _ 3.23. Building Construction (2033) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 w N 2 0 1- 0 2 a ❑ 0 w 2 0 N 0 Cn 0 0 0 Z 0 (0 0 Lf) I I Cf) ; E x 607 c La D cu 2 0 ❑co N O O) Lc) Ln O co O O O O O V O N 0 0 CO o 6 N O N O co V O I O I O I Lf) Lf) 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 (� 0 0 0 0 O O O O OV O I OV O 1 1 O O 1 O LO 0 01— 0 0_ 0 N 0 O 0 CO 6) 0 O O O O O O O I OV O 1 1 O O O 1 O O) CO if) I� Lf) co Lc) O O O Oco O O O V O co N O N Oco O 1 O 1 .i. O 1 O,—. O) CO LC) I,- LO M Lc) O O O Oco O O ,— O V O co N O 1 N O 1 CO CO O I O I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O 0 0 O N O LO O Lf) CO O CO O O O O W N O COO O O O O O I O O I N O I N O O O O LC) M O L() CD I O I O O I O N O I CO M V O O N O N O O O O CO 0 CO 0 O 0 0 O ' 0 O LO O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O) O 6) O 0) O N O 0 0 CO COO O O O O O O O I v 0 o O 1 0 I O O 0 COO 0 COO 0 M 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O I O O I O O O I O Ln LL) O 0 N O N O O O O O O O O 0 0 00 0 0O O V O I v O I O O O I M O O O M O O (7O N O O 0 cc; oo O co O M O I O O CO NCO O M O M (.fl O O) M CO Occi 0 co 0 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 CO CO 0 COCfl 0 (0 0 x— 0 0 0 CO CO 0 N O O O O O O I O O 1 M O O 1 M C C C C N o f m o f a)O o f , coo a) a) a) 'a-)o •°) 608 ow 0 0� 0w 0. ¢o 0w 0w ¢ ow ow o ocn _ > = o� N O CO 7 O O 7 O N M O O I N N O I co 7 O N N 0 0 Ln t Ocm O N O I N O LO O O N LO O 0 CO O CO. O O CO O O o O O I O O O I v O O 61 0 7 O 0 N O 7 O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O O O Ln O co N-_ O 6) M O CO O O I '— N O I co co O O Ln O co 7 o rn co 0 LO o O COO CS) O I N O I co co O I I I I I I I I I I O O LO N O O 0 0 O I O O O I O O O M 00 LO N O O 0 0 O I O O O I O O O Ln 0 O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O V O ON O CO CO O 7 1— O 7 O I N O O I O O O 0) 0 CO 0 N 7 O O O CO I� O 7 7 O N O O I O O O Ln O O O N O O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O I O O O I O V 0 Lc) 0 O O N O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O I O V O LOO 6) N O O N CO O I LO O I O O 4 o - r o 7 O I O N O 0 co O O O co 0 c0 O O O O O CO 0 LO 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O cmO C O 4) O C To 4) O C @ i -0 2 < 0 > 2 < > 2 3.24. Building Construction (2033) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 m LO LO N a 0 Ln N a 0 O W o_ 0- 0 co 0 0 x 0 Z I I O O I OCD O 0 0 0 0 O O I O O r CO O M O N O I N 0 rn O rn O M O M O N O I (.1 O co cm CD IC:D CD CD LO O O I O O O O I I O I I O 7 0 7 O O O I O O N O N O I O O I O O CV (/) E D 0 0 U) X co 2 co O M O O 7 O O I O 0 CD CD O O I N O CO O CO 0 N O N 0 O O 1 O O C C -0 a) -0 O as O E N O E 0) .O- 1' >, 1.N X (1 ,O_ 1i ow 0" 0 2 ow 0 609 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O O O O O O O O N 6) 0 N O 0 O O co 6) O O O O 0) CO Lf) CO r O N O O 6) CO Lf) CO V O � O I I I LO d" 0 CO N O N N O Lf) M O O O N O O O co. co) O O O O O O CO N co M co co co CO 6) co N (7 O O CO CO 0 M M 0 M O O 6) N CO 0 CO O O O c O O co) co CO O O O 0) 6) O O O O O Lf) O Lf) LC) CO V 0 O O Lf) O In LO CO V O O O O I I I L0 0 O N O N O (0 C�') O CO O N O 0 0 N N O '71- 0 6) O Q. Q. O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 6) O O co‘— L() O O O N f— O co V co N CO 0 N CO 0 M O O CO 0) 00 00 co N O CO In O N LS) 0 O O CO O O O O O I V t 6) O O O O O O O O I O 6) O alcoO ( ) N O I co 6) O M O co N O I co t t 0 LC) N V N O O LC) N O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O I O o o N co co O O O O I O CO 0 N O O I O O N O 0 O O O co O O O I O O N O O O O O O O O O I O 6) CO 0 6) N O Lf) O 6) O CO CO 0 CO V F O O O N O I O CO 0 CO O O O O O I O N O � T <0 a) u C O c a) u C O 1, 0 U E x Y O O C a) >, X 0 � • 0) C m 2 U) O) (a T < U) O 0 To 4) L O C C 2 Q 610 M 0 4 O 0 0 O O N O O O O LC) O O co O 0 0 co O I I o O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 V O LO 0 0 0 0 v o O 0 0 Cn 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 O 0 0 O 0 V 0 N 0 O O o o 0 0 0 O O O O O 0) c 0 N > Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a> N 0 0 0 N Z H 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 w 2 1- 0 2 a 0 a w 0 2 a N 0 co O 0 0 Z I I I O I I O CO I0 O o O O I I o I o I o I o 0 I o CO I I O I O I O I O o I o N- 0 - 0 0 o I I I O I I O CNO I O I N- 0 0 0 0 I I l 0 l 0 I CO I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O l 0 O I 0 O I 0 O O 0 I I I O I O I I O CO cc c\I I O O O I O O I O I �' op co I I o lCD o o I o o I o O O O I l o I o I I o X 2 co 0 co o O I o 0 O O O I O co 0 O O co O cO I 0 0 0 0 0 (n O O O O O C c a) o Q ry c C O w a 0 U w 0o o v o o 10 I o I o I O 0 I O I O 10 I (O 0 (9 0 I O I v I O I co O f— O co I O I (O I O I 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 O O O I O O O I C C -0 a) a a) O= O a) O O E 0) 0 o EQ c 611 Ow w 0. <0 Ow a 0 .C. < C) O O O LC) O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O rn 0 0 r- 0 0 C,j O. O. N O O V 0 0 N O O LO O O O V M O O O O O O O 0 O O O W O O 0 O O O O O c a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c 0 Lf) 0 0 O V M O O N_ O O O O O O co O 4) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 c > O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O O CA c N CCSC O _ o LO O 0 O V O O O M O O M O O O O N N O O O O O M co O O O M O O 4>) O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O N O) <0 LC) LC) O 0 O 0 CDq O O O O O O O O V O 0 V 0 O LC) LC) 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 O O O O O O V O O 1 V O O CO 0 O N 0 0 0 0 t- O O CO 0 0 c6 O O V 0 0 In 0 0 N O O N- O O LC) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 1 O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O 1 O O O O o o oo O O O O O 1 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O O O CO 0 0 N O 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 LC) O 0 0 00 0 O O O O O O O O O V O O LC) 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 V O O O O � 45 LO C 7 c c 11) _ C > _ 3.26. Paving (2033) - Mitigated 612 a) N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 H N a 0 N 2 a w N 2 0- 0_ w 0 2 a N 0 C) O 0 x 0 Z 0 0 ct CO 0 O T O Cc)O co O I I O I O I CO O I O I 0 0 CD0 0 I I o I o I o I o I o I o I v I o I 0 O CO 0 CO 0 CO0 O 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD I I O I I O I 1 I O I o I O OO O I 0 0 0 COLO 0 I O L.00 O I CNO I O I O 1- O 1- 0 0 CO0 I I o ILo t o I (No 0 t o I.- I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LO O CO 0 CO 0 0 O 0 CD CD CD CD I I O I 1 O I O 1 O I I oCD CD CD I OO O I 0 0 0 0 I I I I O I I I O I I I O I I I O CO 0 CO O CO 0 CDO 0 CO 0 0 0 I I O I O I O I O I O I I v0 0 00 O I O I O CO 0 COO 0 Q 0 I I O I o I O I O I O I O I v I o I O O O O I I I I o I I I o I I I o I I I o 0 CO 0 COO 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I O I O I O I O I O I O I v I O I 10 Cr 0 0 CDQ 0 I I O I O I O I O I O I O I v I O I CO O CO O CO O O O I O I O II O l co o l o M O M O 0) O 0 I I I O I I O I O I O I O I O I I X 2 (o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 CO 0- C (1.) ry 0-5 as co c O w a 0 0 U 0 X co 2 0 0 0 I o 0 o 10 0 0 I - c c 0 0 E m Cr)o f v> m m o o a) a) O- C 00 O- C O- C tS I 5 as C i > N co C 7 C O ((6 C 0 w a 0 .� < 0 O w a 0 w < O w w 0 .. 0 613 O O O O O O 0 I O o N 0 0 Lf) 0 Lf) Lf) 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I v O O 1 V O O 1 V O O 1 v O O co LC) co cc) o O o 0 O 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I v 0 o 1 v 0 o 1 v 0 0 1 v 0 0 71- 0 0 O O 00 0 N 0 0 Ln 0 0 O O O O O O O I O O o o l 0 0 o v o 0 I 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ln O M O O M O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O O co O co O co O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 v O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O N O 0 N 0 0 LC) 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 00 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O a) c3 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 }, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 E O O O O O O O O O O O O L O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O o 1 o 0 0 1 o 0 0 1 0 0 o CCO O N co O O co O O co O 0 N 0 0 CD C," 0 CD 0,-) CD C)0 0 O 0 0 I O O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 O O O C as CO 0 0 0 N 0 0 N O 0 O 0 Q _ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O I O O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 v O O n Ln U 0 Q) co O O co O O O O O 0 +' O O O O O O O O O O O O E I O O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 1 v O O () L CV O a) a) a)a)Q 8O C 8O C N 4) O C CO 4O C E co T X i 'O T .-. X i -o>,L -0 = L • . 0 m > = o >= a o > = Q > = Cr; Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 0 N a 0 O d W o_ a N 0 0 0 X 0 Z 0 0 C 0 0 0 J I I 4) • E X • �@ 0 0 co r- 10 Lo 614 co O O O O O rn N O O O CO 0 N O O V O O CO O O O 0 O O co O O O O O O 7 N 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O CO 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O V O 0 0 O V CO CO M 0 0 O O V 0 0 O O V O V N O O N O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O N O O 0 0 N 0 O N 0 0 O CO N O O O O O W O N O Q CC OW a) c 0 N O E < C N O d O CC c 0 To 0 c C N U O Q CC O w a) c 0 U w 0 0 N E = E 615 O 0 O O coO O O O N O O I co O 0 a) N 0 0 •71- I I I I O I L 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 O o 0 0 o O O o O O 1 V O O I v O O LO LC) 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 v o 0 1 v o 0 0 0 71- 0 0 N O O O O I N O O I co O O 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 O O N O O O O O O I N O O I M O 0 I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 COO 0 O O 0 O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 0 0 O O CO O O O O 0 O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O O O 0 O N O O 0 O 0 O O 1 O O O I O O O 0 0 0 0 O O CO 0 0 0 O 0 O O O I O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O O O 0 0 I,- 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 CO O 0 O 0 O O 1 O O O 1 O O O 00 000 000 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 00 000 000 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 CD o O o O O a) O (D N O c @ i -0 o 2 < 0 > 2 Q > 2 3.28. Architectural Coating (2033) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H 0 0 0 0 Z 0 0 H LO N a 0 10 a 0 O W o_ a N 0 co O 0 x 0 Z I I O 0 0 1cc o I O I I I o 1 o I •71- I I IcoI O I 1 I 10 0 O O I O I 1 CO 0 O 0 6) I O 1 in 0 0 0 1 O I O 0 0 I I I v0 1 o I 10 0 0 1 I Ln I 1co 0 0 I CO I I O N o 1 D a) U O m a) 2 E o co O X >, - x I .a Y `° >, 616 O (6 7 0 (6 0 CU o i 0 L 0 0(o� 02 Ow < 2O Ow <0 O O CO I,- O O O O O N O O N O O N O O I co O r O O Ln M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO N O V 10 O O V O O Ln O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 71- O O O O O O O O I,- 0 0 O C. O N O O I- O O O C. O N O O I I I f— O O Ln O O O O O LO LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O ▪ O O N O O C) 0 0 ✓ O O N O O o o O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O co O O co O O O O O CO 0 0 ✓ O O O O O LO 0 0 CO 0 0 O O O Lo 10 0 0 O O O O O O O 6 V O O I v 10 up O O O O O O O O O O V O O 1 v • 0 O N O O I co N 0 O N O O I co t0 O O O O O O O O O I O (0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O co O O Cn N O O O O O O I O CO 0 0 10 N O O O O O O I O o o o O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I,- 0 0 CO 0 0 1) O O O O O O O O O I O N- O O O O O O O O O I O M CO 0 0 0 0 U 0 c C N O • Q O • w 0 0 0 4) O) � T < 0 U) O C) (6 Q) i 0 7 C 617 O O O 0 m N 0 0 I IcoI O I I O I 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O co � o N > 2 ca 0) E (NI O (a O U C3 L U a) U L N cr) Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 m w 0- 0 a w 0 N 0 co 0 0 0 Z 0 10 L 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Ov 1 o 1 Ov 1 o 1 v L0 0 0 0 o I I o 1 o 1 o 1 o I o O O O `r) I O v o 7 O O I I o I I o v I I I I I I I I I I I CO CO C I O o O o O O O I I I O I I O CO O I O O CO O N O O O O I O O I I 0 I o I 0 I o I 0 I I 0 I 0 I o I 0 I o 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OV 1 O 1 OV 1 1 vO O CO CO CT) I I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 0) O 10 I I C a) co o E O Q , E X 1 c 0 c/) as O w Architectu 246 O CT O M I o I O O O 10 c w 0 0 T2 0 O 0 X as 2 Architectu 246 C 0 0 a▪ ) C • a) 0) O E L 0 < � 0 0-▪ 5 0 O w CO 618 O O O O O O O LO 0 0 N O O N O O M LC) 0 O O O O N O O co c) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LC) O O O V O O N CO O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O N O O N O O LO 0 0 0 N O O N O O I � I h 0 0 LO 0 0 O O O f� 0 0 LC) 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 0 0 N O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0) 0 0 O O 0 O O O LO 0 0 M 0 0 O O O CM 0 0 CO 0 0 O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 O O O dt 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O N O O co V O O O O O N O O � I I O O L) 0 0 O O O h 0 0 LO 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O M 0 0 t 0 0 N O O C) 0 0 7 0 0 N O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 V 0 0 O O O N O 0 CO 0 0 O O O o o O O O O O O I"- 0 0 O O O O N- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 0 0 N O O O O O N 0 0 O co O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h O O N O O O O N O O O O O O O O N CO a) c 0 N c a) O 0 = C LD 2 YO U7 O co a) a) co T < 0 4) O C) LD i O c > = < 619 O O O 0 ai N 0 0 co- I Oco- I O V 0 0 o o O v O O O O 0 0 O o O v o 0 0 O O - O O 0 0 O 0 O - O O I I I M O 0 O O O O O O co O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O CO 0 0 _ O O O O O M O 0 - O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O N 0 0 CO 0 O O O O N 0 0 O O O O O O r0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 3.30. Architectural Coating (2034) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 Z N O 0 m 0 O N d w O N 0_ H O d 0 O o_ N 0 co O 0 x O Z 0 0 0 U 0 J Lo Lo L.c) O O 0 o O o O o 0v I 0 0v I 0 0 O O 0 0 0 I I o I o I o I o I O O 0 co- I Oco- I O I O O O I I - I O Ico- I O V I I I I I I I I I I I O O O 0 o O O 0 0 0 Ov I O I Ov I O Ov O 0 I I I I O I I I O I I CO O O O h O O 0 O O O O O co Ov I O I Ov I O O co O O i O O O O O O O O Ov I O I OV I O I O O 0 I I I I O I I I O I I O O O O O 0 o O o O 0 0v I o I 0v I o I 0v O O O 0 0 0 O O O ov I O ov I O I 0 0 I O I o O I O I 0 O CO I O I x m 2 -o O Q O • w Architectu 246 O O O O) O O I O I 0 U 0) N s 0 0 N a.)O E cTs_ f6 • 5 O w Architectu 246 O O O O 0 co N N c N 0) p E .� 620 0 O - < D O w O O O O O O O O O N O O N O O CO 19 0 0 O O O N O O O 0 CD O O I CO O O co. M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O N CO O O O O O V O O O O V 1.0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O N O 0 O O O O O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 O O O LO O O O N O O N O O O O O 0 N O O N O O 1 I I h 0 0 LO 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 0 0 V O 0 N O O CO 0 0 7 0 0 N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O) 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 CO') 0 0 O O O co) 0 0 CO 0 0 O O O N O 0 O O 0 O O O 71- O O O O O O O O co O O O O N O O O 0 CD0 O 0 N O O 1 I 1 I-- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O O N O O M O O O O N O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 V 0 0 O O O N 0 0 CO 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O I V O O O O O O O O O O O O I V N O CS Cs O O COI O O N- O 0 M O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co) O O O 0 O N 0 0 CO N- O O O O O I O N 0 0 I- O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O I O I� O O N I� O O co N— O O I O 0 0 1— N 1— O O O O O O I O co O O M O O O O O O I O CO 'Cr CO 0 OCIS U O To c Q cr � O Ow 0 c 0 O T E (0 CIS 2 4) O) N < 0 4) O m To 4) 7 C 621 N O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O d 0 0 O 0 0 0 d 0 o � CD N > 2 a) Q 0 4) 0 m VJ o co O ,^ VJ E U W U < 0 O 2 co a) •0 o_ 0 d 0 4 73 a) CO 0) C CC Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) m 0 0 0 N z H O 0 N O 0 m z 0 0 N a_ W N 0 O a_ W O 2 0- N 0 0) O 0 0 z CD 0 0 a) 0) E _ �,- _ o _ A E f0 (� T C N N C 0 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated O 0 O N z H N O 0 O 0 z N O 0 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1OE PM1OD PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T 622 a) N I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I T"zij To C (0— a C co 2 H Q H 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m H N d 0 U) N 0_ W N 0_ 0 0 W 0_ N 0 co 0 0 x 0 Z C7 0 a) m a)U Q U) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) -o ; E X 7 o D O O o > X °'a o O O 623 E a5 O Q a- _a E C@ O <o > a) o a) m a) o D a) U) Q U) U) O U) U) Q U) (/) 0 U) m N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t6 n To j To o ocpo 0 0 0 i� c < cn 0./ i1 I 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m w N a 1- a 0 a w a N 0 0 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 a) a� m .T E f6 N .�' C f0 ( c oc7)2 H 0ff- 2 Q H 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated co c co L L 2 as co 2 0 c co io co L L c co c co 0 0 co w U 0 0 0 N Z H 0 0 N 0 0 Z 0 0 H N a 0 L cN G a w N a 1- 0 a w a N 0 0 0 0 Z 0 co co 624 N 0 (%H 0 H Q H 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 0N 0 Z 0 m 0 LO ("Ni a w N 2 a 1- a 0 d w co 0- a N 0 0 0 0 Z C9 0 a> m ° a) Q 0) co r- co co 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 To ; D ; O O OTo CD O O O O s a E iCD n 0 cn i/ a < cn in o i1 I 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule • ase Iescn.tio Y'or ' a . - ITT:74 Da s •er 'vee7 N co 0 C W ,.. -Ala 0 10 o L o CO N N 00000 O O O O O 10 10 10 10 N N CO 0 0 CO N N N N CO 0 CO CO O N 71- LO CO CO 'Cr NNCOCO 0 0 0 0 ONNNN N O V N-- CO CO x- O 0" Site Preparation Site Preparation O C 0 0) 0 Building Construction Building Construction O co 0_ c ID 0 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5.2. Off -Road Equipment O O O 626 FL.iirt ili 0 0 a 0 0 O 2 'ours 'er •a4 l um.er •er •aA tarr, O h CO H O 00 N- (1) O V h L) N CO M CO 1- CO C) V V CO N N N- CO V CO CO 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N- M c?r CD CD CD O O O O CO co t CO N V (0 N 4 (0 H O) CO N- CO CO CO H CO V CO CO 0 H CO V CO CO CO CO 0 O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 6 00 6 M 00 W OD CO 00 CO 00 6 CO O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N N N M M N N N N N NNNNN NNNN NNNNN 0) _N 0 0) 0 0 0) N O 0) 0 O 0 0 0 0 H H I- H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Site Preparation 0 0 0 0 V) V) V) (1) 0 0) 0) 0) EEEE Excavators V) 0) CD Rubber Tired Dozers Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diese O) O) O) 0) 0) CCCCC a -D D m ca CO a al CD CD CD CD CD 0 0 0 V) V) V) 4) 0) 0) EEE V) V) N � c o 0 L Building Construction Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Building Construction CD N N N 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) EEEEE Building Construction Paving Equipment 0) 0) 0) 0) c c c a C CD d d ci Air Compressors Architectural Coating 5.2.2. Mitigated iriniffea 0 0 0 Q 0 'ours 'er Da 'um.er •er •a4 EMIMIELTE WirMarTiT 1- M CO O O O r O O C4 V O co co co O O O 00 6 O O O M V N Tier 4 Final 0) V) 0) 0 Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Site Preparation (n 0) O Tier 4 Final 0 Excavators CO O ti 0) 627 O CO N- 0) O V N- lf) N CO CO CO d- V CO N N h Ch V Ch CO - O O O O O O O O O O O O co co O t` O O O O O O O O O C V CO N 4 V OH O) co N- H cc') V 00 co 00 H 00 V co co () 0') 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O (X) 00 0) 0) 00 00 t` CO 00 OO (b Cfl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O N N H 0') i Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final )) )) a) n n Cn 0 a) ) EEE (D Rubber Tired Dozers Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel 0) 0) 0) c c c c =o =o =o =o 25 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 Tier 4 Final Tier 4 Final a) H (7T. (7 n Cn U) a) N 0) 0 0 0 O CN a) c rn 2 o 0 u_ Building Construction Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Tier 4 Final Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Building Construction 06 CO C6 C6 co c c c c c LL LL II U it V V V V . ) 0) N ) a) H H 1— 1— H � � � � (1) a) a) CD a) EEEEE Building Construction Paving Equipment co co co c c c a a co a O a Air Compressors Architectural Coating 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated MittgraYAMI rine-Y'a n.s .er 1aA ,iF7a0FTT LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT N- co O N- O O N I I 00 CO Cn O O 11 0 1 I o Onsite truck 0 0 0 0 0 m CO CO CO CO 0_ CO Q CO CO a) a) a) a) a) 0) 0) 0) a a 0_ a a c c C a) CD CD 2 2 2 628 o 0 0 1- ❑ ❑ _ = 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- ❑ ❑ _ = LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT I— I— ❑ ❑ 22 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- ❑ ❑ 22 f� 0 0 f- 0 0 I� O O N 11- CO N N- 00( CO N Onsite truck I O GO O O O Ln 0 I O Onsite truck c C C C Onsite truck O 0) Y O c O C > co Onsite truck O 0) c c C C c 0 O 0 0 U N N C C N C C C O C 0 0 0 0 0 c c c c c @ CD 0 0 0 0 0 c c M c c 0) 0) Q) 0) 0) Q) 0) U 0 O O O C C C C C C C Q) 0) a) v) 0) a) N N a) 0 c c c c c EIEEEE ( 0 m CO Ca m CO a 0_ a a 0_<<<<< 5.3.2. Mitigated ► aranarc� one-Wa Trips per Da ,�. - ►FTiiT' LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- ❑ ❑ 22 0 o CO N I LDA,LDT1,LDT2 (0 O O Y 0 C a O I > al Onsite truck CC C 0 0 0 0 CO m ca m CO Q a a Q a N O 4) O N O) a) 0- a a 0- a 5 629 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- 0 0 _ = I LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 1- 0 0 _ = I LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 1- 0 0 _ = I O 0 h O O I� 0 0 cci N I I c\J N LDA,LDT1,LDT2 HHDT,MHDT 0 0 O CO N O O CO O O O O I O I I- Lco o O 0 I I O IR I O Onsite truck Onsite truck C C C c .0 0 .0 ,0 .0 U 0 U U U 0 0 0 0 0 n m cn rn CCCC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0) CD CD w CD CD 0 0 =o 0 0 0 m m m m Building Cons Onsite truck CD CD CD CD a c C C CD cl d d CL d Onsite truck CD CD CD CD CCCCC CD CD CO 03 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 L L E . U U U U U < < < < < 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 011.1: MFM1 r ontro trate. ies .. ie. Water unpaved roads twice daily Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 0) Sweep paved roads once per month 630 5.5. Architectural Coatings 'ar in. rea oate. �' LU; as 0 0 X w c 0 0 • m ce N C (0 Z U 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 • Sr 0 0 CC N 0 O O Z U 0 (0 O U as 0 O 0 c 0 72 0 Cr N O V co - co Ln O O d O O O 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities cres 'ave. acres; Mit4151II147.1I TT.(OEI �atena x.orte. 62 �atena m.orte. J IOFTii ! O O CO N O O LC) CO 0) 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies VAPAIMORISM saiiDIWZI1T. MU requenc per .a ' ontro trate.ies pp ie. 0 CO N 5.7. Construction Paving rea Paved acres; 0 O O d 0 O O O TD 0 0 O O O 0 O O d O N Z N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ▪ 0 0 0 ▪ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v v v v v v CO CO M C) Cr) C) C'') Cr) C) C) M O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 ▪ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 N ▪ N N N N N CO C�) M C) M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNNNNNNNNNN 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change D CD (o C CC co Lri U U c Ve•etation of p- ve.etation an. Ise p- 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Yes etation of . o Ye. etation an. Ise .- Biomass Cover Type 632 5.18.1.2. Mitigated : iomass over 5.18.2. Sequestration atural as aved btu ear; lectricit aved kWh ear; 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 1 1 8. User Changes to Default Data a) 0 U7 Total acreage for Phase 3 is approximately 134 acres. a) co co J Construction of Phase 3 would occur from June 204 to June 2034. Default construction equipment list and assuming use of Tier 2 construction equipment. Construction: Off -Road Equipment CD 1- 633 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0 0 tea/ E 0 U 0 co CO 0 c0 c 0 Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.1.2. Mitigated c W N 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 634 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.3.2. Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.4.2. Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.5.2. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 635 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 4.7.2. Mitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type a) a) 0) ++ E c D 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated CD CO CD a-=, 2 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated v CO 636 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 5.9.2. Mitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated co c 0-) a) c co o_ o C.)CT ca W L a) z Q o as _ co L U c < J N M O O 6 6 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11.2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.13.2. Mitigated 637 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated 5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type cd L 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 638 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 8. User Changes to Default Data 639 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 Information 0 E t .� L 0 LI L LL a U U co .'^ CO r a) To a) iL co 0 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Project Name Operational Year T V m CCS a) J Land Use Scale T O O CO o O U cri Analysis Level for Defaults Windspeed (m/s) Precipitation (days) 37.706775792032246, -121.84691330316261 co a) c a ❑ Bay Area AQMD San Francisco Bay Area i O c o > v) oO co LNL 00 ❑ . Q 0 J C.) U Q H W Pacific Gas & Electric Company Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric 2022.1.1.20 1.2. Land Use Types c 0 Q 0 N 0 a) c O 0- 0_ :ui •in. rea Q.L` c 0) N_ �TTa� . p a CO CO 0 O CO O CO N LO O a0 640 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 N • O O CO- W 0 0 CO COLO • • 0 6 N V O O O O O CO 0 O 0 0 CO r O - r M M O LC) 0 7 w 0 7 coOco• O O • O co O O O O 0 • O O co 0 CO03 CO 0 O V N N M - CO N Manufacturing General Office 1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector ivamminyaupg, O U Provide End -of -Trip Bicycle Facilities Locate Project in Area with High Destination Accessibility Orient Project Toward Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facility Provide Bike Parking � CDN CONL CO CO H H H Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results. co E E V JJ VJ 0 0) W 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds N 0 0 0 N Z H 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1OE PM1OD PM1OT PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T il X 2 v LC) CO CO Ln M N CO CO N N Ln LO rn rn Ln LC) r M M N O CO Ln (0 N - N N 0 N CO CO M M P.-- 0 O V V M N V V NL V N CO CO 0 2 10 LC) CO 641 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0 LO O v v 1 v LO v CO CO CO N N N N LC) LO M CO CO CO COCO 01 O O O N N 10 d v O v O V LO O v 0) N CO 0 LC) N N O N N V 1.0 N 00 00 O 1 O O V In CC) CO CO LC) O V CO CO O CO LO O 0 O N N V 0) N 0) CO L i N Ln LLr)) V hcs5 L j o N o 1 0 0 0 4 CO 00 CO CO 0) 0) I M 0) O 00 0) N O 0) o coM C) - N 0) 0) CO CO co V Ln Ln o co co CO 0) 0 N- co Cfl Cfl O C) 0) V CO � N N CO CO LO O V O V O V LC)0) o LO 00 h CO - CO 0) V CO CO 0) 0) CO Ln 0) O 0 CO O 0 0 0 0 Lo CO CO CO N- 0) 0) 0 cocoO C) C) O I O O OV f"--- CO - - o 0 C) N CO cc; o N N CO 0 0 CO Ln 0 v 4 v v 0 Ln Ln 0 N N 0 0 0 0 O LO Ln O coLn OV C) C) O cciO co O I O O OV L() O 1 v � LIX)f) O v L. 'Cr V LO 00 CO Lf) LO N N V O O V 0 0 0 Ln In O CO In Ov v v Ln Ln V 1 0) 0) V 0 0 0 0 N 0) (0 0) 00 Lo 0) 0) V CO � VIV 0 0 LO LO O CS) CO v O v CO CO 0 0 LO V C) Lf) 0 O V I N N V N .�' C m -O N= E �; 'Q c c E -gyp et0 D o �' Q 0 D 2 o Q 0 o ) 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 0 In N 0 0 O 0 W O 2 0 N 0 07 0 0 X 0 Z 0 O U N CD LO O CO N 10 Ln (fl C) N CO I"--, 4 O CO 0) r- O CO O 0 N CO CO C) N LC) CO C) co O CO V co O N CO co CO O CO N M. O O CO 0) CO LO N- n 4 co N LO 0) LC) 0) N N E 642 aLOi 0 C Q Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 M CO CO 0 0 V co O O N CO O 0) 1() CO O 1f) O M O I 6) N-- (T V N 0) co N O) N CC)M N 1 N N (T CO (O 7 CO CO LO 00 (O N O I N O • CO N CO N Lf) I — N I I I I (O C)) M I I O 0) CO O CO CO CO In N CO N— CO - M CO N CO CO CO O O V 711 N 1— N CO O N N O co O N O CO co O O O I O 6M O LO N CO CO N r- (0 O N N I Cr-") If) co N CO NCO M ONO CO M N CO CO O O N O N CO CO- N I N O N CT CO o W 1 00 NO N CO (.O N O 1 O 1 11) O) N CO 0 O O M O • CO N CO N 10 N I M r- 0 Cr) N O O O 1 1 O V 1f) co. O N I I L o O M O CO 0 N— CO 0 CO M. N M 1 1 1 1 1 1 r- O If) O CT 0) N I I 0 rn COCO CON CO N - � 0) 0) CO N M CO O N 1 0) COco 0) '1' 1".- ? N N 1`..:CO V co O 1` .— N I N CO N— (0 10 O O co CO O In 6) co (0 O) O co M O co O O O CC) In V O M O O) O V O O 10 0 N LO M 0 N O O CO N co N Ch O N- N 1 M O V N co co COO COV 0 CCOO 0 ( N CO CO N 6) (A V CO 0 CO' O NCO CO 10 CO CO' N I N I N CO — CO co O) co co V 7r CO O N co t` O O) 0) V co 0) O O O O 0N V CO N O 1 N N CO O Lf) I O I N I COI O I N N _ N N 10 M 0 M 1 1 M CO O O 1 (fl (fl 0) M I I M (0 I I I CO — N CO ( N 10 CO O O O I I 1 0) O O O N V 1- CO LC) 0 I 1 N O O 0 CO N 1 1 1 0) V N CC) co co 0 O O OM 1 OM I O O O 1 10 O O V V V 0 V r o0 o I I I o 0 1 CO M O) — O) v CO CO I .L7) 1>7 1 10 CO CO O) O) 71- v 0 M I CO' O O N- M 10 10 o O N I c I 0) N �O 0 10 0 >' a) - a) a) NTo co cl) � c o X m 2 N >' 13 co a) - (. a) N 02 2 < w 5 NY I° 0) O T < o N L N pC ) t6 N L Q (9 CD N 7 To Q (B 2 < w NY H < 2 < w 643 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 CO M O O M M CO CO (n O 1 I O I O M N N 00 I O O rn a dN 4 (p (SS 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) N 0 C) 0 N z H N 0 0 N 0 0 z N 0 0 m 1- Ln N a 0 N a W N d 0 O a w 0 N 0 co 0 0 0 z C7 0 0 U N CO O N V CO CO LO O N CO (0 LC) M co 00 I� N 1 CO CO () Lfl CO O N O M CV CO CO CO d1 V co co- h N I CO O O CO O O CO O L() CO O LO O O M O O 66 O M O 0) I O O O M O Cr) CO N- CO O CO o CO LC) 0 N CO V CO LC) CO CO N 71- O CS)N 00 CO CO CO N I N I N O CO O N Lc) Lt) O r N 1 M 1 CO CO 0) 0 ONO CO M N 0 00 0")O 0')N 0- N CO CO- N 1 N I CO I� N_ CS)_ CO a)O N CO 7 0 N CO V LO LO CO h 0 LO N CO 00 Is- O CO- I COCO CO- O LO N CD O 1 N I N CO LO 0 N O I ON I 0 - O CO N CO 0 CO CV I o I N M CO 0 N O CS CO 0 COI 1 O I o o • O N CO N I CO I CO CS) CV 00 r`oi O co 1 co O O O O M I I I I o I M I I I M LO O N f� L0 0) N CO O O a I I 1 V I O O o 1 1 1 M CO N CO CON CO o o I I O o I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 0) h N CO 0) 0) N O 6 6 6I I I v6 6 61 1 1 M 1 o o l I I I o o I CO O 00 co co 1 1 I co 1 N— COI I v l M N- co N LO CO N M 71- co I I c t N M I I 0) 0) LC) L() 0) N N-. Lf) co W L() a) N I I 1 O CO N644 o�� < w o � ¢ w <0 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 CO N CO CO CO CO a) CS) N CM COCO 1- ,- , a) CO CO CO CO O 01 V V N N CON V O V CO CO ,— N N CO N M co co O 0 V O CO 0 N CO O CO CO 0 CO a) O Ln co O CO O) O 0 LL7 O Co Lf) V O M 0 1 O O V O O 0 I CO O CO O N O t` N LO I M CO O O) M COO M N CO 71"C O CO O N 0 V CO M N I N I co O a) L[) O) CO 71- o 0co o5 LO 0 V co N O 1 ON Ln 0 N N- N CO CO O N O V N CO CD N 1-- CO 0, V O 0 M N CO CO CO I CO O) N 7r 10 O co co a) v_ coo N O N COO N— ( O I co O V LO CO CO I O I N 1 10 I I O I N 10 110 O f N N CO N LO COo0 M I 1 M O O O I 1 71- 71- ID CO M I I I co I ID I 1 I CO I 1 M O LO O O O id O co co N co I I N O O I I I N 0 0 Ln 71- I I I N I I N O) V N Lf) co co co o 0 0 0 1 I co I O O O I I O C/) 6 O a.)N 1 1 1co I o o I I I o D c c 0 ca Co o LO 0) co CV CO M 11 1 10 1 N 0?1 1 0) •E N CO CO Co Co LLJ o ccio M I I I o 110 o r- 1 1 1- CI) O w O co CO N- N O CO ( Q) co 0 N I 1, I COa) '- c; I I N a) 0_ o L6> To �, L a, O 2 2< c CC 1-< 2< c co CC 1- 'i" 4 4.1.1. Unmitigated c L L 2 r2 V c ctS L c 0 as 8 N C CO 0 L a) 0 4) N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 H Ln N a 0 Ln cN a w 0 N 2 a H a 0 a w o 2 a N 0 co 0 0 0 Z 0 cc il X co 2 M co 0 Ca a) N N V o 0 O rn M a) Ln O a) 0 Ln N CO N Apartment 3.92 4) u) J LC) N 645 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 CO N CO O LO- CO CO f� CO M O N Lf) O Lf) M O N N LC) CO CO M I� O N N LO CO CO M I- O) (O O O Lf) N 1- N N N • V CO CO 1' O O O co Lc) Ln N- O) M LO f- CS) CO CO O O O N f- O) O O O co CO co Lf) LO M N O N Lf) co CO 4) 0 2 Manufactu 34.5 CO O N O LC) O O 1- O N N M CO 0 O O O N O LO O 1- N O O) LO ti O) O N O O ti M O O 0) LC) V O O O O M N N LO a) • O O O U 7) 0 0 m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O as a_J O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ N 0U CCS L O_� 0 < v) o X La 2 M O M 0 O O O O O O) O) O N M O O (4 N co O (0 O CO O co O N O N M L0 M co U Ca • L CO CO N CO co O O O CD O N N M N M CC) O O CC) N O O O 10 O O N M O (0 N O O7 O CO W CO 0 O co O O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q) C d J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ U O C 0 < cn O N CO Cn N 1.6 LC) N CO N M N CO M O O O M 646 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 co o _ co V coLO O CO 0) CO O CO 0 0 N L1) h 00 O O (.4 N O O N I� LC) C O Ln O O O) O CO O O O 0) O O O O O O O O (0 CO 0 0 0 0 CO O L() O O O co O O O O O O O O (NI O O M V 7 CO I� Cr) CO CO O O O7 (0 00 O O N O O N O 0 CO V r V CO f� O) CO CO 0 0 0) Lg. CO CO_ 0 0 N O O N .---- co co Ln co o O CO I 7 7 co co co O (0 0 O 4 O O O O O (O c c CO L 8 co h O - co O O 6) 15, I co CO CO CO O O V O O O O O O CO 1- 2 00 O O ( (� O O O O O O O -0 O O O O O O O O c0 co O O c N _0 M N O O co 0 �2 CEO N 10 CO CO 0 0 CO \-/ f ,— M N,— O c:;N -0 c (O CO N r r 0 0 CO CO I O O O O O O O 0 O O O c;O O O O 0 m L 8 N CO CON r 0 0 V L I O O O O O O O O c 0 y 1 O O co co co O O 0) CO I coO O O In co O) 00 V O O D LO LO O O) V O O V I O Ln c co —5 �r I co O V � O O 1-- (O — O M O O O o D) 0 CL -E.O _ N G RS E E C fl_ '_ c co O 7_ c m 3 c 0 5 o c c _c o_ 't To co C 0_ O C O 0) _c(V 0) 7 co O N C p L Q < wn J � .L 2 CC) 00m d J O Q (n H C.) a) N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 H N a Ln N a w N a 1- 0 d O a w O 0- 0 0) O O x 0 Z 0 0 E = E u 0) CS) LO rn rn LC) Ln N r N.-- CS) 0) M O L() M O Lc) O M O CO 0 f� 6) (O w 0 CrCO 0) r co O r- O) (0 N 0 M h O O Ln N .7r co co O O O O O M f� CO (T 0 CO O - O O O O LP O co co Lf) Apartment 3.92 M N CO CO U w CO EY) LC) 647 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 co Lo co V O co 4 O O f-- O O I CO CO CO CO 0 N- N O) V 0 N () L0 0 0 N CA CO O O O CO I O) O h O O O O) CO CO V CO N O Ofs- CO N O O CO O f— CO M O O O O O O In O O O O O O CO I O) N h (0 O O N Ln N O O CO co co CO CO N O O N O O O O O M O O O O O Ln I LC) CO COCSI CO N 0 M O) O) h C) 0 O O CO LC) N I� 0 CO O) CO M 0 0 0 r f� O O O CO O O O 0 O 0) CO O O) O O N O O5) O O N CO I CO d O r- O N O 0) 000 0 N (O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I N co LO � O O Lc) N M O O co N N M co O O CO O) O O O O M 0 O O O M 00) O O M O O co N N M O O M I (O M O O Lc) co co CO co O O Lfl O O O O CO O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O I CO N O O M O N V CO N O O M Lfj O O h LO O O O) O) f� O O O CO 0 O M I- M CO O O O T V O O { V O O 4 O) O) O O h V O O O) Lt) CO co N- CO O V O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O I CO CO ( O O O) 0 O O M 0 COO O O N O O O O O O O O O O O I V V O O O CO O CO O) O O CO N O O co CO LN CO 0 0 0 CV O O V N O O V 1 N CO 0 0 M N O N O O N COO O V co co LLi O O N O O M M Ln 10 N O O N O O O N O O L() c O O) C S- +- O ' O N O U N emu) (0Om a_ O<cn H co a5 Apartment 3.80 C,.j O O) co O O ( co cc; N: N O O L61I 7 O _ to CO CI) ol ' 0) a C C L _c Q 648 _co (0 .c 2 CC 0m 0__J 0 m<c) 12 < Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 CO LC) O O CO O O O 10 O 10 O O O ti O O N O O O 10 rn O 10 O co CO O O O O O M O N O O O O O 0 0 al)•L O O O W O N CO CO N W O O O O O LC) O O CO O CO N a)) O O TD 0 O O O O O 10 CO O O CO t O O O O N O O N O O M O O 10 O CO O co O O O O O O co O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 co d J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 TO0 co _0 0_-C O Q () O O N N CO O O CO CO CO O O V O co N CO N O O O Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 0 0 0 N Z H N O U N 0 0 00 Z N 0 U c0 H N d 0 N d W O N a 1- d 0 O W a N 0 O U x O Z 0 a) co 0 c co J O O 10 CO N- CO N CO U co rn 0 0 0 0 2 649 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 N LO N Lf) co 00 LO CO N O - O (O r O - N O O CO O 10 O•co h co 10 O N LO - N- O N LO Ln O O N O O N LO M N O O N O 0 O 0 7 O M O O 0 O O O O V O O O O O O O V O O I Lf) Ln O O co 6) O O h co LO I— 00 O) O O O O O O 00 N O O O O O V O M O N O O O V O M 0 0 _ CO1`--- V CO f� O CO O) 0 O CO CO O CO 6) 0 4 O - I x- 71- x— O N I cc 4 � O N O _ O M co 00 O O O (0 O CO CO O O 0 - O - O N I N asc O) ..-� O O a 0. a)0) c � co U 0) • fs TO (D• Om a_1 --COc7) H O W- Apartment — I 1 I I 1 1 I I 7 O C O_ Nco co U To m_ � .L 2 w COO 0 0 m O J 5< cn a Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 Lf) 7 co M co 6) co N N co O N O M Ln Ln Ln Ln O O o O O O O O O O O O O V O O V V V O O Ls) O I� In M O O 0p O O O O O O Lf) O O O O O V O O CO CO N 0) CO N N O co w rn co N N N- co O I� O Lf) V O Lf) N O M h O LLo v o Ln N O M c6 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c c6 to L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I- G co 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 -c o m D I 1 1 I I I I I _O 0) c9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -a c c) c6 n I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c c6 L 0 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c O co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m -o 0 co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N c CO 2 I I I I I I I I U o c D a a) W E coo CO c 'Q m �' 0) ca)i cis C O TD O O C C c-) i Q 't N CV < u) 2 .c 0 CC 0) O 0000 a j O< 0 1- U N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 U m H N a cN a_ w Liz N 0_ 1- O 2 0_ 0 0 w 0 0 N 0 O U 0 Z 0 L0 CO r 000 Lf) Lfi M O M O O O O O O CO LC) f� CO O CO N O O N O O V O) CD CO co 'Cr 0) CO M CO I Apartment — 10 LO CO 1 1 1 c o) N U (o C co E c O •Q a) o a)_c C 651 cn J 2 _ r U) U Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 LC) O O O O M CO CO O LC) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ln CO LC) CO N CO CO O CO O CO O CO LO O N O O O M O M O Lfi LC) O O O V O 6) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M co O O CO N CO N CO O N C N C U 0 0 m O C a_J X o 4) 0 2 co Q) C aJ L9 C c H < 652 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 Ln o N CO CO Lc) LO CO 0"; 0") N N N- N O M LO LO LO O O O m O O o O 0 0 0 0 o O O O O V V V O O Ln O LO co O O co O O O O O LO O O O O V O O O O 7 co N N N O _ 0') co N- O O N N N LO h O LO V O LO N O M LO r— O LO O In N O M 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated L 0 L 2 -o co 0) 2 (9 c ctS ss L 0 c 0 as A ca m c co 0 0 0 a) U N 0 0 0 N Z H 0 0 N O 0 Z N 0 0 H Ln N 2 0 0 LO cN G 0 w 2 a 1- 0 0 w O 0 N O O 0 0 Z 0 cc E x co 2 co v _O N co M M CO co v v Ln Ln Ln O O O w O o O 0 0 0 0 V O O v V LO co O O O M O O O LO N CO CO N Lo 6) LO O CO W O LO N CO CO N LO 0) O CO h CO CO(O 1- V V ti LOO N O O O N O O O v LO Lc)co N O O ON O N O O O O CO CO LO LO N O O O N O O O O co N 0 0 O N O O O O O O N O O O N O O O O O O V V LO O co LO LO O N CO O O O 0 0) 1 v CO CO O O Apartment 0.07 N- 0 OO N 0 0 O O O 7 O a)U p p Q a) O0a2) p o' 0 O 0 _"'3 653 u) J 'o _ C c0) 0 0 0 00 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0 M N. V O co O O _ LC) N CO co coO O Lf) cocoO co coI�O 00 co O co N co O V 1 V V I� O O V 1 N CO I- Lf) Ln LO LO LO O O CS)O COO CD O O O _ O O 0 O O co O O O O O O O O O O O O I V O O V V O O O I V O V O 0 0) r 6) 6) N h O O 6) N 6) (0 O coLf) CO 0 O O O O LC) O O O I O M O O O O O 4 I O O O 0) Lf) O 6) N M CO 6) O 0 CO N LC) O) COO 0 CON CO cc) co O CD O O I N (O N- O O O O co O O V I O O L0 N CO CO N LO O Ln O CO 1— V - CO 0 CO ti O O O O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O 0 N O CO 00 Lf) O O N N f— LI) O O O LO N O O O O O O V O O O M I O N O O O O O M I O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O O N O CO 00 O O O L!) N O O 0 O O O O O O M I O N O O O O O M I O O O O O N O 00 00 O O O Lf) N O O O O O O O O O M I O N O O O O O M I O O O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I co co N O 00 00 L(j co co N N I- L() O O co Ln N O O O O O O O O O M I O N O O O O O M I O O O Ln Lf) Lo Lo O O co co O O V O N O O O O co O O 0 N O N O O O O O N O O O O O O I O O O V V O O O I V O V O O co L() O co O O W O O O N 10 W Lf) O O N O N L() O O co O N M O O O O M I O Lf) O O 0 O O O O LO 0 0 O N 0 h O O O N co (O O O O N N CO O O co M M O O O O co O O O O O co N- O 4 O O co V V O O . O 00 N 0 0 0 0 N O CO 0 O O N I O — O O O O O N I O O O 7 7 a) N U co as c co C (6 co co N (o �_ a 1_ m 3 0) , 5 o c c _0 0_'C To c m 3 c n LD p CO 7 p N g O_ p N C O 0) L a) a '7 co O (A 7 p C O_ p CO C O J 0< U) H 0 ,.., Q CO J 2 'c 2 W U) O U' O m d J O< u) H < < co J 2 'c = e N 654 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0) O 0 CO 0 0 Cb LO LO O O O O O O O O O O O V V O O O LO O O 0 O rn O O O O CO V O O O O N 0 co CO N CO O N M 10 O O N- o o 10 O O co O O f- 0 0 co O O co O O N I O O LO O O O O LO V O O O O LO O O O O O L10 V O O O O LO O O 0 O LO O O O O LO V O O O O O O LO 0 o O O LO V O O O O L0 LO O O O O O O O O O V V O O O N 0 O O 6) O O O O) O O O O LO M O O O O 0 0 O O N O O O 0 o O O v V O O O O O iZ (U , N c CO O O O C C U i _c Q `t (B Iu)O 00m co _coc� H 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated CO CO c� G (0 D 0 !cn V 0 C (0 z L C O w-+ U) C (0 0 0_ (0 •a) •U ai N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 00 H LO N 2 d 0 LO cN 0- w 10 N 0_ 1- O 0 0 O o_ W O_ d 0 O 0 0 Z 0 0 N E o(f) X co CO . O LO O CO C LO LO LO O O O O CO _ O O O O O O O O O v O O V V O CO O) 6) N N- O LO co O O O O M O O O O LO N CO CO N LO 6) L,.) 0 LO co 10 c O r- O LO N CO CO N LO O) LO O co V - M CO CO 0 O O 0 CO CO r LO LO N O O O O N O O O O CO O LCO O 0 0 N O N O O O O LO N O O O O N O O O O O co N 0 0 0 O N O O O O LO co O O O N O C� O O N O O O O O O O V V O LC) 0 CO O LO LOCO O O N M O O O O O co Vcco o1 0 M O O O Apartment 0.07 o o N O O O O O O O U 0) C •sZ (6 C) = Q p O 4) _c a) 4) '5 c p Cn J 2 c' w 0 0 0 m d J 655 n Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O M N O M Cr) N O M V N O N co co O M CO N N LC) Lf) O O O V CO O O O O O O O O O O O Ln O 1- O O co co co O V W O O O LC) N CO Ln N CO LC) N O O O O_ O O O co O co O co 00 W co M O CO O CO O N O O O O co M O N O M CO O V N O O M CO CO O O O O O O O O O O V M O LO O O O CO O Ln O O O V O O O 1— (0 LO O O Ln O O 10 O O O V Ln O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO LC) V O O O O M N O M N O M N O I CO N I co Lc) (NI N O O N (0 N N O O N O N O O O O N N O O O O M O O O r- (C5 V O r- O V O O O O N O O CO O O O CO N M N O O LC) O O Ln O O Ln O O O V O O M O M O O O V N O M N O M O O O V LC) O O O V N O M O O LO O O V H T 0 X 0 N (0 < (/) 4) 0 J 0 L6 c () 0 (0 0) c N c 0 a 0 '5 0 0 m O ca d J (0 0 d 0 < 0) Ta c H < C m < to 0 c � y) 0 2 656 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0) O O (o 0 o co O 0 0 0 o O O O 0 0 ✓ O O O 0 o rn O O O co O O o 0 O 0 r O O O O oo O 0 n 0 0 0 o co O 0 0 0 O O O (n O O o 0 O O 0 U O O O O O O (0 O 0 0 L O o O O 0 0 (0 O 0 0 u O 0 0 0 O O O O V O O O O ✓ O O O O O O 0) O O O O O (n O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O (0 2 0) N 0 CD D• om o i 0< i 12 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) N 0 0 0 N z H 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 L N 0- 1- a 0 0 w a N 0 0) O 0 0 z a) 0 0 0) (0 N-LO CO I N Ico() CV - co co co co cc cc I O I O O O N N N CO co O I N I CO M N N N N CO Lc) co 0 N I (0 () N O O O I o l 1 1 0 l o 0) O 0) I O I O O ▪ I O 0) O ) v I O - 1 1 O O 1 O N rn CO N- ) I o - 1 1 0 0 1 0 rn 0 I o 1 0 o I o O CO C. I `° CO O O N7r. co h N 1 () I N v co rn v 0 O (0 - N ,— 1 O Vl • E .,. U • � 0 (n D 2 a) o o 2 • .o o F_., o 657 00) 2 0d < 0 J a)w H 0 1 n Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0 0 O 0 O O 0 o 1 ov 1 I 0)) Lc) co V Io O 0 o O O o 0 0 V V 0 0 o O 0 0 0 v V � O O CO O O O I O 1 0 1 I I O in 0 0) O N N 1 1 0 1 v 1 1 O O 1 1 I I I I I I I 0 0 0) O N N CD 0 1 O I ov 1 1 o O 10 O CS) O M M 1 1 O - I co v1 I o 0 O O O c+) co O I ov 1 0 0 10 0 O 0 - 0 0 0 I 00 I 0 I O c-.;v v 0) O In M N I O I O O O 1 o O 6) I V 0) C 7 • N c (0 C • (� N C f6 U m < 2 U H < 2 Consumer 14.8 Landscap 2.39 4.3.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) N 0 U 0 N z H N 0 U N 0 0 m z N 0 U 0 N d 0 N 2 d 0 3- 0 O 2 d N 0 0 U x 0 z 0 0) 0 0 0 o 1 N CO) N N CO0) N 1 O o I I 0) o - I I O O 1 - 1 I N O a) 1 O - I I O N 1 0) C 0) U U o).. E X _c • C C E co• E 658 ocn� = U3- < 2U Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 N CO 10 L() co co 1 O o O O 10 10 00 00 N N I N I I I Ls-) O O LO O COCO CO CO O O O O 1 1 o I ov 1 1 O 0 (0 co- N O `0 coco 0') N 0 N N 0 N I 0 N • I C N 00 N • I N 1 1 1 1 0) 10 (o Lc) Ln o O 0 0 O 0 V V o 0 O O O O V V O 10 co O Ls) co I O O I O I O I I O LO 0 - 0 0) 0) O N N O O O - I o - I OV 1 1 O o 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I Ls-) O O O O O N N O O O - 1 O I OV I I O O 10 0 CO N- 0") CS) CO CO O O O • I O I OV I 1 O O 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I Ln O 00 f— 6) 6) O co co O O I O - I I 0 1 v 1 1 O O Lfi L() 10 O O O N - O O O O I 0 1 O I 1 1 O O 10 0 O 00 0 0 0 1 2 I 1 I 7r. C▪ O M N I N l o I Landscap 26.5 O C 0 Ocr T C 0W o X 2 O (0 0 Consumer 81.3 10 0 1 O l— CT)• I V O C.)CM O C (0 2 U as N C (0 d < T 0 H < = Consumer 14.8 Architectu 2.03 O C m o U CO O 0 Landscap 2.39 0 O_ To w w H 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 0 N 0 U 0 N Z H N 0 U N 0 U Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T 10 N 659 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 CD O O O O LO 00 O N O O ti 0 CO N W O O W N 10 V O O co O N co O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 M M O O O O CO N CO O 1- N M O M eM O Lc V co co M O N N M N LCi E co 0 C0 0) •f6 L 4) 0 2 01 0) C d J 0 F2 T C o X 0 C 0 0 tn 0 0- < EnJ 660 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 O 0 V I N O O 00 O O 0 co O O O O M I O O O O CO LO O O N M O O',II- N- CO Lri co O O co M O O LN O 0 0 0 O LOO O O O O O O O CO CO V CO O O N N N LO O O N O O O O O N V O O co O O M O O O CD O O n N co I� O O LO O O O r) I O co f— O O O co V coco o o LO 0 O 'I' O 0 0 N CO O O N I CO d" 4 4 ,— O O 4 _ O O O O co co LO V O O O O M O N (0 CO COO O N M O O I N N N N LO O O N O 0) O U ( c O (0 (a N U (D w Q aN C N U 0 p L 0_ C co 0) 7 p O_ p O L 0) O) C '5 as 5 1 7 �� 0Om a_1 OQcn H < < m� 2 CCU)O OOm a_ O< 1- 4.4.2. Mitigated a) N O U 0 CV Z 1- N O U N 0 0 Z N 0 0 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1OE PM1OD PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T coLo N 661 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 CD O O O O LO 00 O N O O ti 0 CO N W O O W N 10 V O O co O N co O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 M M O O O O CO N N M O M eM O Lc V co co M O N N M N LCi V O N 0 E co 0 CO 0) •f6 c 0 0 2 0) c d J _ 0) (p 0 0- 0<(1) 0 F2 T C a X 0 2 C 0 0 tn 0 0- < EnJ 662 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 O O O O co O O • N • U D• om O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C co d J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M V O O � I M O I e)) V O LV O O � I (SS c H < O O O N O n O CO CO N CO N 0 O U w co co 01 L.6 O O 0 2 CO O O N O O O To 0) Q 0) 0 C CC 6) co O O CO LC) O CO O O O V O LC) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) C co aJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O CO L O M O co H 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 663 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 a) N 0 0 0 N z 1- 0 0 N 0 0 z 0 0 0 N 2 a 0 O d N 0 O 0 x 0 z 0 0 a) E E 0 CO CO CO N ^ CO LC) 00 CO N CO N O) N- CON 0) co O coO O f� 1 co (6 M 0 o 0 o O 0 O O O O o O 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O COCO CO OCO O 0 0 N00 0) - O O Lri O O N I 6) M O CO CO N CO O O O V O CO M h O 0 O N CO O O O N O) 0) - 0) O LO O O N I - 6) O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I o 0 0 0 O 0 0) co CO O O N CO M N- CO O O O N O 0) • ON) L0 Ls O O N 0 - O) LO Apartment — I 1 I I 1 1 I I m 0 co C • p) a) O O C C U N a m e 0 m_C a) m o m m_ �' _ CCu)0 oOo 0j 0<o 1 0s- Apartment — M I I I w co To E = o m • ' a 664 o cnJ �• -o = 2U)0 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 M W 6) O O c0 6) f� 0) 0 0 0 0) N O O O N LC) LC) M N O O 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O N O O O LO O O N LC)._� tI 0 CO O O CO 71" CO O M � O O O O co O O N L () co O O co Lf) O O N I M 6) 00 O O M 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ V 0 O O N c M c0 O O co co LLi O O N I M 6) cO O O M I I I I I I I I I I - m O O .-. N N N c..) ( c O _ N a) O C asU (SS Q Q a)C coU U CI _cQ 7 c Q _ca)0 co cm O 0) 0) '5 co`p _ca)? 0 �� OOm a_1 0<0) H p < Q COS 2 CCu)O 00m a_i 0Q(I) 4.5.2. Mitigated a) 0 0 0 N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 Z N 0 0 m Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1OE PM1OD PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T 665 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 N co O O O O O M LO O O O CO 0) O O O O O O co Lri (fl O O O LC) O O O O 10 O O O O L0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cr) 0) O O O LO COLO Cr) E co U CO 0) •f6 c a) 0 2 0) c CIS d J 0 F2 T C X 0 666 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 LO O O O OLO O O O O a) C U 0 O m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C co d J O O O O O O O O O co O O O O M co I O I N N N N N 0 I N N I N a5 a3 c H < O O O O O O O O O CO O CO O O O N M O O O CO up. O CO rri a) 0 2 O O O O O O O N O O O O O O aO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) C co aJ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -- To U Q 0 < 0) H 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 667 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 a) N 0 0 O N Z 1- 0 0 N O 0 Z N 0 0 m H up 2 0- 0 N a w t d 0 d N O O 0 x 0 Z 0 0 aO LO MCO CO N • I N- N- O O a0 M LO N COCO I- N- d O 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Apartment — v LO LO C, I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I o 0) fl_ N c O a) O U 7 op • co co _ 668 0) o c c 5 m m 3 c o o c c m c O a3 c 0 a) L a) a) 7 O (6 O_ O c O a) L a) a) '7 p c m � 5 1 � v) 0 0 0 m F 0 5. —< one 5 2 � W 0 0000 E < Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 CO N CO O CO O - O O N I I I I I I . D 0 C No • U La To <-I g.L 2 CCv)O O• Om 4.6.2. Mitigated N O U O Z H N O U N O 0 Z N 0 0 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM1OE PM1OD PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T c0 COLO CO f� O Apartment — LO CO CO I I I I I 7 co• U ri)co E 7 • p Q CD a)0 • c 5o = _ 0� 0 669 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 ' N u) Q < to o U CO 0")•m L r Q) 0 2 co O t0 c H < O O U CO • L 0 CO O d O d M N 0 H 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 670 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) N 0 0 0 N Z 2 0 H N O 0 N 0 0 H N d 0 N d 0 d w d N O O 0 x 0 Z 0 0 a) E w > E m (D To C n5 (0 c (0. ou)� 0 2 1- ¢ 12 4.7.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a> N 0 0 O N Z 1 S 0 H N O 0 O 0 Z N 0 0 CO H N d 0 LO N 2 a w N a 1- a 0 w a N O O 0 0 Z O 0 a`> E 2 (7.. x To _ 671 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type a) to 1 E D Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) N 0 0 0 N Z 2 0 H N 0 0 N 0 0 H N d 0 L N d W N d 1- a 0 8 O 0 x 0 Z a) CL w �> To .T E (0 (o c TO 0§ 12 ¢ 1- 4.8.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) m N 0 0 O Z S 0 H N 0 0 O 0 Z N 0 0 CO 0 N 0 1- a 0 2 d 8 O 0 0 Z O 0 a`> ' E E `m —m = c m 0 cn 3 H 0 1) co To 672 F2 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 < H 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type cri a) 4- E D Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) m N 0 0 0 (V Z 2 0 H N 0 0 0 m Z N O 0 H N a 0 N a w N a 1- a 0 0) O 0 x 0 Z O ce a� E Q a) w H X 0 � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ m _ c (0 H Q H 4.9.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) 0 C) 0 N Z 2 0 H O 0 N 0 0 m Z 0 0 H N a w N a o_ a N 0 0) O 0 x 0 Z C7 0 H 0 V 673 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 I I I I I I "zij_ _ T C co co c (o Q 1- 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated d Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ) Na 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 0 0 0 m Z N 0 0 m 0 N 2 0_ W N 2 0_ 0 O 0 W 0_ N 0 0 0 0 Z C7 0 0 a) O T = C m 0 c 0 ,2 To 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) N 0 0 0 N Z H N 0 C) N 0 0 m Z N 0 0 0 N 0 W N 0 0 O N 0 co 0 0 0 Z CD 0 a) 0 0 ca J V V E ill To 674 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 T Cx (o OZiH Q H 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) 0 0 O Z H N O 0 N 0 0 m 0 N 2 0- 0 0 N O co O 0 x 0 Z C7 0 a) m U a) Q (/) 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m -0 m -° a' ° TOTO> TO�' w > (5 7 > D a) -° D a) 7 a3 D a) -° 7 a) 0 U) Q U) U) 0 U) CC U) 0 Q U) (/) a) U) CC 1) N Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m D �o to m j m o C6oCDo 0 0 0 c i� 1 < < cn u) ca) in co I 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) a) N 0 0 O N Z H N O 0 N 0 0 w N a 1- a 0 a w a O 0 x 0 Z 0 0 0 0 E 0 cn 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated ca c co L L 2 as co 2 0 co' io co L L c 0 0) c co 0 0 co w U aJ N 0 0 0 Z H O 0 N O 0 Z 0 0 m H N a 0 L cN G a w N a 1- d 0 a w o_ a O 0 0 Z 0 LO V 676 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 .�' E cn (0 ( 0N .- T C f6 c• 6 7 O O c O 0 1- Q 1- 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) N 0 0 N Z H N 0 C) N 0 0 0 LO ("Ni a w N 2 a 0 d w co 0- a ( N 0 0 0 0 Z C9 0 co m O m Q 0) Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N 'O _ N 'O in To To-c)(6 fn (o a) (0 a) o O Oco 0 co O O O O 0" _o EIi cs o- E o a) co II I<< I 5. Activity Data 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated MT aturda MT Weekday T c C O H ri.s WeekdaA an. Ise N M co h CO N N O CO O CO M 7 O co O N N co co O Qj O O L0 V 0) CO N 6) N N 0) CS)O I� ,c co 00 M co V f- N- N- N N- N 0) N N Cr) N- O N- O r-- 4. co co M co N- N x- 0) N N CO N- 0) N O f� CO O M CO V O N O V L0 l0 Oco co W N- h O tri O M co O O O V O 0) _ O N- 0 0 O C7 l0 N C) 0 7r N 0) O I- 0 0 O M N CY") 0 t N 0) _ O N- 0 0 O C7 l0 n 678 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 LC) co O O co O O M O O 0 (0 CO O 0 0 0 0 O co (0 co O O O O O 0 (0 (0 O 0 0 0 0 O CO co 1.6 O O O M O O co O O O co co O O 0 0 O 0 (n O O O O O O 5.9.2. Mitigated MT aturdaA MT WeekdaA T c C (1) N d T Q ri.s Weekda1 an. Use 0) N- M V r M M N- LC) I,- N 0) LC) O (COO 0 0 O O O CO O O LC) V 00 (O M O O CO W N 0) 0) f� 4 LC) LC) M co V f� O r r N r r CO O LC) N f-- N O) f� LC) f� N CO O) LC) O f-- N O) I-- L!) O LC) r CO N r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) N- CO CO O N- CO O LC) N N N CO LS a O coO O LC) V O co O O V CO CO V 0) CO ((00 CO COO O O M r N CO- r O O CO CO O CO 00) N- W 0 0 (CI M CO O CD r r N M O O co O (0 O) N- N- 0 0 (0 M V CO 0 O O r r N CO- r O O Manufacturing General Office 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths Inmiti.ate. ®,:m; Apartments Low Rise N O O Wood Fireplaces Gas Fireplaces Propane Fireplaces LC) CO 679 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 O 5.10.1.2. Mitigated Inmiti.ate. ®,:m; O O 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 'ar in. rea oate. QQLD; 0) a) co O 0 as m O a) C (a C a) a) C � o tzr Z iMINE T 5114!i 4151i_1%F[NZ.FIMEQ.Ea ZalinTURIIIMISWITEMICVIMEM rn co O N O CO 0 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 680 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 T (SS 0 0 0 Summer Days 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated N (0 0 O Summer Days 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated CO CO U) rCO V Z 0 Z (o 2 0 (0 0 0 c c� Y U .L7 U a) w OrliR7.1[e J ; 0 N Z N 0 0 126,480,455 M O O O c)N co N co • O c,)O O M co ,— co N O O V - t V t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 (O 0 01000,0,000, O O O O O O MO O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N NNN ((0 co M co- N (coo (0 M V (.0 (V (f) - r O O O co - O O co co r) of N N O Apartments Low Rise Manufacturing )) 0 Regional Shopping Center General Office Building 0 J co c co 0_ Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.11.2. Mitigated > CO V Z c (6 0 N Z c (6 2 0 c 0 0 c (o Y 0 U a) w latura as 17IIUJ E 0 N Z N 0 U 126,480,455 - V O O O O O O OM M M M CO CO 0 O O O O 0 N N N Apartments Low Rise Manufacturing 0) 0 681 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 O N Lf) O co Lf) O M O O co Lf) N O O O O O O • V t O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M co c') M co co co O O O O O O O O 0 c0 C 71- V V'Cr 0 O O 0 u) N N N N 0 U a) co a) 17) co V O � O c� O O L co N N O 0 0 0 Regional Shopping Center General Office Building a L a) 0 5.12.1. Unmitigated •utdoor Water .al ear; nsoor eater .a ear; O M O ON 0 O O O O N O O O O O O Apartments Low Rise 667,942,500 Manufacturing LC) O N N- C-0 Lf) CO • 0 O O f� O O T.) 0 Regional Shopping Center General Office Building Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.12.2. Mitigated •utdoor eater .a ear; n.00r eater .a ear; a) co 0 J O `I' O O O O O O N O O O O O O Apartments Low Rise 667,942,500 Manufacturing CO N N- CO Lf) CO - N Lf) f— h • V r O O h h O O 0 Regional Shopping Center General Office Building 0 J O c a_ Other Asphalt Surfaces LO O V 682 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated r o.eneration TT ear; VYaste ton ear; N co a J N CO00 N O O O O N- r— O M O O M .— — O) O O Apartments Low Rise Manufacturing 0 Regional Shopping Center General Office Building 0 J O C 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.13.2. Mitigated o.eneration ►T ear; O CO N O O O O I� O M O M O) O O Apartments Low Rise Manufacturing 0 Regional Shopping Center General Office Building 0 J O C a_ Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated mantra m y"zm' e aerations ea at a C9 f0 N O an. Ise a: 683 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 O o co coco o co o co r r r r r N r r r r Lf) O 0 0 0 Lf) O O O O co co co co Co O (O O If) O O Co O N O V O V N V r O V Lc) Lf) ID Lf) O N O O O O O N O O co O co O O O O O V O O O r V V O O V CO CO O CO CO O CO N CO O CO O CO v_ N r N r N M N r r N 0 16 O coV 12 06 U ° U a) .oTo � 0) Q E e E N o -a Q a ° 0 0 0 s m -c co m m m < 0 m 1 Apartments Low Rise Apartments Low Rise Other commercial NC Manufacturing and heat pumps co O M th th 2 N a i a 2 0 0 Cr)0 2 n a V. 2 a co 2 6— N E 0 .— i E 0 a) N N a) ° ° m ° ° m •ca) mwC..)a)= w a) aL am CO .0) N Li)0 N-c 0o 2- - - a) 0 -o t 2i@ U m > m U m w 2 w S m O co 0) 0) C C Q .0 Q °_ O O _c L 0) (0 (0 0 C O a) 0 a) a) a) 'O C 0) 0 0 0 o a) a) 0 a) 2 2 = 0 0 General Office Building General Office Building 5.14.2. Mitigated 171RMI:1 61 r•.erations ea -at= 0) 0 a5 a 0 0 a3 a) 0) N an. Ise • O 0 0 d co N O V O O O N O V Lc) co O N co O M V O O W o co o v o N r N oeS 0 To Ua E °2o a 0 a1) Cr) a) 0 Q Apartments Low Rise and heat pumps Apartments Low Rise 0 O Other commercial NC Manufacturing and heat pumps V LO If) 684 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O 00 o CO r N r r r r O O 1 O O O O o v N v o o v o O o o O O o co 0 Ln 0 o co 0 Ln LC) Ln 0 0 0 0 O O O V N O O 00 O O O O O O ,- V V O O V CO COM CO OM M COO V O O O V V O N M N N V O_ V O V V _O coO co co- I -t O O 0 .0 O (1 .0 NE N -O w i N Q N N Q w02N i "O N E Q O N E Q C( -p N w L - O (6 N N O (0 (0 (i L L w U N C N U N N ( c0 O N L 1 4_ N L N O g -O Tts L 'O _ 2 'i'O ce N C I N L 'O 0 c > CSO (CO (n2 w = N 1( O O) C C Q Q O O_ O O _c L (0 (0 C - C L O a) O 4) N N N ' ) ) O O O d) 4) N N = 2 2 W U W U General Office Building Other commercial A/C General Office Building and heat pumps 5.15. Operational Off -Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated ...iMein ' ours 'er IaA 'um.er ser •aA quipment p- 5.15.2. Mitigated 1IT ' ours 'er •aA lum.er .er •aA 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps WMIMEM ' ours .er'ea ' ours per 'a lum.er per Ia4 quipment p� 10 N 685 Iu• in a on 5:1 - :ui .out ustom e•ort, • 1 Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Equipment Type Equipment Type . :. Ve • etatio .. . an• Ise an•a 73 a) 05 Q) E CC D co in Initial Acres Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Land Use Type • . 8. .2. Miti.ate• Initial Acres Vegetation Soil Type Vegetation Land Use Type N— CO Sri . . Unmiti•ate• Initial Acres Biomass Cover Type . . Y iti.ate• Initial Acres Biomass Cover Type • . :. . e • uestratio 686 Dublin Fallon 580 - Buildout Custom Report, 11/6/2023 -o a) Q) E N co L a`) E Z 5.18.2.2. Mitigated atural as aved btu ear; lectricit aved kWh ear; 8. User Changes to Default Data c a) The total site acreage is 192. Other asphalt surfaces include non -parking asphalt and hardscape. Trip gen is 22,618 ADT. Assuming that the proposed project would not include any hearths. 687 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix B Model Snap Shots 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 688 Project Location 8ottamdazid @rreek K-8Sch061 --�� iteP i Eub 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 1 689 Receptor Grid _�y�9:i'z rxeca�A."^ngft Prak�rnize Unmitigated Cancer Risk — Residential Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 2 690 Unmitigated Chronic Hazard Index — Residential Receptor Unmitigated PM2.5 Concentrations — Residential Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 3 691 Unmitigated Cancer Risk — School Receptor Unmitigated Chronic Hazard Index —School Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 4 692 Unmitigated PM2.5 Concentrations — School Receptor Unmitigated Cancer Risk — Worker Receptor E'DP 03.5'..hai -r �A=➢8 -.7 7n�L`e 6 OE 0.0 l s.aE 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 5 693 Unmitigated Chronic Hazard Index — Worker Receptor Unmitigated PM2.s Concentrations — Worker Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 6 694 Mitigated Cancer Risk— Residential Receptor Mitigated Chronic Hazard Index — Residential Receptor Hatias.bdm oos. 7,P IT-At rcz,8a Nil 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 7 695 Mitigated PM2.5 Concentrations — Residential Receptor OE-02 e cE.03 10E, DE D3 1 OE-03 btfdclriF.:an nit +�510 ae Creek��asant�I .1 � ,� Ftchool Mitigated Cancer Risk — School Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 8 696 Mitigated Chronic Hazard Index — School Receptor aao9ao Google! "MEISchool - Chronic HI 1nnnx Mitigated PM2.5 Concentrations — School Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 9 697 Mitigated Cancer Risk — Worker Receptor Mitigated Chronic Hazard Index — Worker Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 10 698 Mitigated PM2.5 Concentrations — Worker Receptor 11/6/23 (P:\DUB2101.04 Fallon 580\TECHNICAL\AQ\Construction HRA\Model Snapshots.docx) 11 699 Construction MEI (Sensitive) - Cancer Risk (in a Million) HARP Rec 8: 1313 X: 602011.31 Y:4174109.3 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 19.20 2.90 1.80 0.00 MEI (Sensitive) - Chronic Hazard Index HARP Rec k: 1313 X: 602011.31 9:4179109.3 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 5.37E-02 3.08E-03 1 2.03E-03 0.00E+00 MEI (Sensitive) - Acute Hazard Index HARP Rec 4: NA X: NA Y: NA Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 MEI (Sensitive) - PM 2.5 HARP Rec k: 1313 X: 602011.31 Y:4179109.3 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 0.268 0.062 0.041 0.000 Construction MEI (Worker) - Cancer Risk (in a Million) HARP Rec e: 743 X: 601279.87 5:4173612.26 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 1.36 0.21 0.13 0.00 MEI (Worker) - Chronic Hazard Index HARP Rec 9:743 X: 601279.87 5: 9173612.26 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 5.21E-02 2.99E-03 1.97E-03 0.00E+00 MEI (Worker) - Acute Hazard Index HARP Rec 4: NA X: NA Y: NA Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 T 0.00E+00 MEI (Worker) - PM 2.5 HARP Rec 8:743 X: 601279.87 5: 9173612.26 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 0.261 0.060 0.040 0.000 Construction MEI (School) - Cancer Risk (in a Million) HARP Rec 4: 25 X: 601790.77 0:4174114.08 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 17.52 2.65 1.69 0.00 MEI (School) - Chronic Hazard Index HARP Rec 4: 25 X: 601790.77 0: 9174119.08 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 4.46E-02 2.56E-03 1.69E-03 0.00E+00 MEI (Schaal) -Acute Hazard Index HARP Rec H: NA X: NAY: NA Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 MEI (School) - PM 2.5 HARP Rec 4: 25 X: 601790.77 0:4174119.08 Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 0.2231 0.0517 0.0340 0.0000 700 Zone 10 Process Coordinates Datum WGS 1984 KML File Name DUB2101.04 Project MEI Sensitive Description Receptor Type Model Type UTMX UTMY Latitude Longitude Unmitigated T2 72L3 T4 Row Construction Sensitive Cancer Risk 602011.31 4174109.30 37.70855235 -121.8426899 Col 2 3 4 5 4 Construction Sensitive Chronic HI 602011.31 4174109.30 37.70855235 -121.8426899 2 3 4 5 7 Construction Sensitive Acute HI 0 0 2 3 4 5 10 Construction Sensitive PM 2.5 602011.31 4174109.30 37.70855235-121.8426899 2 3 4 5 13 Construction School Cancer Risk 601790.77 4174114.08 37.70861995-121.8451907 12 13 14 15 4 Construction School Chronic HI 601790.77 4174114.08 37.70861995 -121.8451907 12 13 14 15 7 Construction School Acute HI 0 0 12 13 14 15 10 Construction School PM 2.5 601790.77 4174114.08 37.70861995 -121.8451907 12 13 14 15 13 Construction Worker Cancer Risk 601279.87 4173612.26 37.70415441 -121.8510556 7 8 9 10 4 Construction Worker Chronic HI 601279.87 4173612.26 37.70415441 -121.8510556 7 8 9 10 7 Construction Worker Acute HI 0 0 7 8 9 10 10 Construction Worker PM 2.5 601279.87 4173612.26 37.70415441 -121.8510556 7 8 9 10 13 701 General AERMOD Input Parameters Project Boundary Based on site plan Project Elevation Data Source Lakes Environmental Link http://www.webgis.com/terraindata.html Evel Data Descr. 7.5 min DEM Project Receptor Grid Telescoping Grid Spacing (m) Distance (m) Grid 1 10 310 Comments Receptors on roads or parking lot areas have been removed. Meteorological Dataset Location Livermore Provided By Bay AREA AQMD Years 2013 - 2017 Elevation (m) 119.8 Construction Modeling Specific Inputs AERMOD Input Options Regulatory Options Default Pollutant Type Other Averaging Period Period & Hourly Dispersion Coefficient Urban County Dublin Urban Grouping/ Pop Y I 67,632 # of Worker Receptors 1,095 # of Sensitive Receptors 1,247 # of School Receptors 618 Const uction Area Parameters Source Type Polygon Area Project Area (m2) 759,253 Ht. of Source (m) 3.048 General HARP Input Parameters Construction School Receptors School Scenario Parameters Class Grade K-12 Starting Age 4 Age Range 4 Year Old -12 Years Old Receptor Type Individual Resident Assessment Type Cancer / Chronic / Acute Exposure Duration 1 Intake Rate RMP using the Derived Merthod Comments Each year of construction is modeled seperately and the impact to each recepetor is summed to estimate the total esposure from construction emissions. Additionally, the starting age is increased for each year of construction. School Pathway Parameters Pathways BAAQMD Manadatory minimum Pathways Deposition Rate 0.02 TAH < 16 yrs N TAH z 16 yrs N Sensitive Receptors Sensitive Scenario Parameters Starting Age 3rd Trimester Age Range 3ra Trimester -11 Year Receptor Type Individual Resident Assessment Type Cancer / Chronic / Acute Exposure Duration 1 Intake Rate RMP using the Derived Merthod Comments Each year of construction is modeled seperately and the impact to each recepetor is summed to estimate the total esposure from construction emissions. Additionally, the starting age is increased for each year of construction. Sensitive Pathway Parameters Pathways BAAQMD Mandatory Minimum Pathways Deposition Rate 0.02 TAH<16 yrs Y TAH >_ 16 yrs Y Worker Receptors Worker Scenario Parameters Starting Age 16 Age Range 16 - 27 Receptor Type Worker Assessment Type Cancer / Chronic / Acute Exposure Duration 1 Intake Rate OEHHA Derived Merthod Comments Each year of construction is modeled seperately and the impact to each recepetor is summed to estimate the total esposure from construction emissions. Additionally, the starting age is increased for each year of construction. Worker Pathway Parameters Pathways OEHHA Minimum Pathways Deposition Rate 0.02 TAH < 16 yrs N TAH >_ 16 yrs N 702 For Running Each Base Year PM 10 Tons/Yr Unmitigated T2L3 T4 Year 1 0.1462 0.021985 0.012335 0 Year 2 1.2013 0.048115 0.006514 0 Year 3 0.29765 0.068905 0.0454 0 Year 4 0.15417 0.047045 0.036155 0 Year 5 0.1181 0.04162 0.03367 0 Year 6 0.11775 0.041505 0.03367 0 Year 7 0.10375 0.027485 0.01915 0 Year 8 0.10375 0.027485 0.01965 0 Year 9 0.10405 0.02756 0.0197 0 Year 10 0.0725 0.014075 0.00743 0 Year 11 0.00390945 0.000539 0.000129 0 PM 10 Lbs/Yr Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 Year 1 292.4 43.97 24.67 0 Year 2 2402.6 96.23 13.02828 0 Year 3 595.3 137.81 90.8 0 Year 4 308.34 94.09 72.31 0 Year 5 236.2 83.24 67.34 0 Year 6 235.5 83.01 67.34 0 Year 7 207.5 54.97 38.3 0 Year 8 207.5 54.97 39.3 0 Year 9 208.1 55.12 39.4 0 Year 10 145 28.15 14.86 0 Year 11 7.8189 1.078 0.257 0 PM 10 % Chng Unmitigated T2L3 T4 0 Year 1 100% 15% 8% 0% Year 2 100% 4% 1% 0% Year 3 100% 23% 15% 0% Year 4 100% 31% 23% 0% Year 5 100% 35% 29% 0% Year 6 100% 35% 29% 0% Year 7 100% 26% 18% 0% Year 8 100% 26% 19% 0% Year 9 100% 26% 19% 0% Year 10 100% 19% 10% 0% Year 11 100% 14% 3% 0% PM 2.5 Tons/Yr UM T2L3 T4 Year 1 1.34E-01 2.01E-02 1.23E-02 0.00E+00 Year 2 2.01E-01 4.53E-02 6.51E-03 0.00E+00 Year 3 2.79E-01 6.62E-02 4.54E-02 0.00E+00 Year 4 1.46E-01 4.58E-02 3.63E-02 0.00E+00 Year 5 1.12E-01 4.07E-02 1.97E-02 0.00E+00 Year 6 9.77E-02 2.66E-02 1.97E-02 0.00E+00 Year 7 9.77E-02 2.66E-02 1.97E-02 0.00E+00 Year 8 9.77E-02 2.66E-02 1.97E-02 0.00E+00 Year 9 9.79E-02 2.66E-02 1.97E-02 0.00E+00 Year 10 6.83E-02 1.34E-02 7.43E-03 0.00E+00 Year 11 3.34E-03 5.01E-04 1.29E-04 0.00E+00 PM 2.5 Lbs/Yr UM T2L3 T4 0 Year 1 267.15 40.17 24.67 0 Year 2 401.72 90.65 13.02828 0 Year 3 558.7 132.32 90.8 0 Year 4 291.37 91.54 72.5 0 Year 5 224 81.4 39.3 0 Year 6 195.3 53.14 39.3 0 Year 7 195.3 53.14 39.3 0 Year 8 195.3 53.14 39.3 0 Year 9 195.8 53.28 39.4 0 Year 10 136.6 26.89 14.86 0 Year 11 6.675 1.001 0.257 0 PM 2.5 g/sec UM T2L3 T4 0 Year 1 0.003843 0.000578 0.000355 0 Year 2 0.005778 0.001304 0.000187 0 Year 3 0.008036 0.001903 0.001306 0 Year 4 0.004191 0.001317 0.001043 0 Year 5 0.003222 0.001171 0.000565 0 Year 6 0.002809 0.000764 0.000565 0 Year 7 0.002809 0.000764 0.000565 0 Year 8 0.002809 0.000764 0.000565 0 Year 9 0.002816 0.000766 0.000567 0 Year 10 0.001965 0.000387 0.000214 0 Year 11 9.6E-05 1.44E-05 3.7E-06 0 Run only 1 & 2 Years Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Unmitigated 100% 100% 25% 13% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 6% 0% T2L3 15% 4% 6% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% T4 8% 1% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 703 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix C Biological Resources Report 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 704 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE DUBLIN FALLON EAST PROPERTY CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GH PAC VEST, INC. 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 5115 Houston, Texas 75056 Prepared by: OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Wetland Regulatory Consultants 3170 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 260 San Ramon, California 94583 Phone: (925) 866-2111 - Fax: (925) 866-2126 E-mail: jeff@olberdingenv.com Contact: Jeff Olberding OCTOBER 2022 705 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.0 LOCATION 5 3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 5 4.0 REGULATORY SETTING 6 4.1 Federal Regulatory Setting 6 4.1.1 Plants and Wildlife 6 4.1.2 Wetlands/Waters 7 4.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 8 4.1.4 Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 8 4.2 State Regulatory Setting 9 4.2.1 Plants and Wildlife 9 4.2.2 Wetlands/Waters 10 4.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act 11 4.3 Local Regulatory Setting 12 4.3.1 City of Dublin Tree Ordinance — Chapter 5.60 Heritage Tree Regulations 12 4.3.2 East Dublin Specific Plan 13 5.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 13 5.1 Soils Evaluation 15 5.2 Plant Survey Methods 15 5.2.1 Review of Literature and Data Sources 15 5.2.2 Field Surveys 15 5.3 Wildlife Survey Methods 16 5.3.1 Review of Literature and Data Sources 16 5.3.2 Field Surveys 16 6.0 RESULTS FOR GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 17 6.1 Soil Evaluation Results 18 6.2 Plant Survey Results 20 6.2.1 Floristic Inventory and Habitat Characterization 20 6.3 Wildlife Survey Results 24 6.3.1 General Wildlife Species and Habitats 24 7.1 Wetlands 37 7.2 Special -status Plants 38 7.3 Special -status Wildlife 38 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 39 9.0 LITERATURE CITED 44 ii 706 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Regional Map Vicinity Map USGS Topographic Map Aerial Map CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences within 5 miles CNDDB Plant Occurrences within 5 miles USFWS Critical Habitat Soils Map Photo Location Map Habitat Map Plant and Wildlife Species Observed Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area Special -Status Species Occurring Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area ATTACHMENT 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS This report should be cited as: Olberding Environmental, Inc. October 2022. Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Prepared for GH Pac Vest LLC. 111 707 SUMMARY On August 31, 2022, Olberding Environmental, Inc. conducted an updated field reconnaissance survey of the Dublin Fallon East Property (Property) for the purpose of identifying sensitive plant and wildlife species, sensitive habitats, and biological constraints associated with the Property. A previous survey of the Property was completed in October 2016. The Property surveyed is comprised of approximately 186.20 acres within the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The Property is comprised of two separate parcels. The larger parcel, located to the east of Croak Road and Fallon Road is referred to as the Chen Parcel (Chen) while the portion to the east of the Chen Parcel is the Anderson Parcel (Anderson). Olberding Environmental conducted a jurisdictional delineation within the Property during 2016. Results of the delineation were verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 2017 indicating that the Property contains wetlands/waters that are considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Currently there are four linear drainage features that flow down multiple hills from north to south across the northern portion of the Chen Parcel. Water from an intermittent drainage in the northwestern corner of the Chen Parcel enters a culvert which flows under the Property and then exits a second culvert just south where the water discharges into a roadside ditch adjacent to the Property. The roadside ditch and culvert eventually overflow onto the Chen parcel creating a large emergent wetland. A complex of five seasonal additional wetland depressions were observed along the southern boundary of the Chen Parcel. There are five seasonal wetland features within the Anderson parcel. Two small wetlands were noted in the southeastern corner and along the southwestern boundary of the Property. Three other wetlands were observed along the fringe of the quarry pond. All of these features are considered jurisdictional waters/wetlands by the Corps due to their hydric soils, dominant hydrophytic vegetation and hydrological conditions. In October 2022, the City of Dublin conducted routine maintenance to allow water to flow through the roadside ditch and exit through a culvert at the bend in Croak Road. This will likely change the hydrology across the site thus a new verification will be requested from the Corps in 2024. A query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) showed that 13 special -status plant species have a high to moderate potential to occur on the Property. San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex depressa), Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. condonii), and saline clover (Trifolium depauperatum var. hydrophilum) all have a high potential to occur on the Property. Large flowered-fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), alkali milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula) big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round -leaved filaree (California macrophylla), 1 708 prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) and long -styled sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca longistyla) were identified as having a moderate potential to occur on the Property based on the presence of suitable habitat located within the vicinity of the Property. Hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) has a low potential to occur onsite due to the absence of suitable habitat and the fact it is presumed extinct in California. Suitable habitats for the plants occur throughout the Property are within the grassland habitat and the seasonal wetland features. Olberding Environmental conducted multiple rare plant species surveys in 2017 and 2022 across all the appropriate blooming periods to assume absence for 10 of the 13 species above. The three special status plant species that were determined to have a high potential on site were observed during the August 2022 survey; San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's tarplant, and saline clover are present within the Property. No additional plant surveys are warranted. A total of 17 bird species were identified to have a potential to occur on the Property in a nesting and/or foraging capacity. Four bird species that were determined to have a high potential on site and were observed during the August 2022 survey; Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) were all observed within the Property. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), western screech owl (Megascops kennicotti), barn owl (Tyto alba), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) have a high potential to occur in a nesting and foraging capacity, while the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) has a moderate potential to occur. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) all have a low to moderate potential to occur on the Property in a foraging capacity only. If project construction -related activities such as tree and vegetation removal or grading take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for nesting passerine birds and raptors would be required. CNDDB listed 38 occurrences of California red -legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii) within five miles of the Property. The closest CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #860, 2001) was directly adjacent to the Property on Croak Road. The next closest occurrence (Occurrence #279, 2020) is located just north of the Property where a known breeding pond is located. An adult CRLF was observed immediately east of the intersection of Croak Road and Fallon Road in 2021. Multiple CRLF have been observed within the Croak Road ditch during ditch maintenance in October 2022. Also, over 40 CRLF have been observed up stream under the Central Parkway bridge. A CRLF was also observed within the Chen parcel during a 2018 wet season protocol shrimp survey. The riparian woodland/drainage area in the northwest corner of the Property is highly suitable habitat for CRLF breeding and foraging. The seasonal pond within the quarry offers adequate water during the wet months which could support breeding, while the surrounding 2 709 small mammal burrows provide upland refuge during the dry season. USFWS designated critical habitat for CRLF overlaps with the northern half of the Property. CRLF occurs on the Property in a breeding, foraging and dispersal capacity. CNDDB has listed 58 occurrences of California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense) within five miles of the Property. There are eight occurrences within a one -mile radius of the Property. Occurrence #893 is located on the Property within the quarry pond within the Anderson parcel. Additionally, several CTS larvae were observed during a wet season protocol shrimp survey conducted in March 2022. The Property offers suitable breeding and upland refuge habitat with the seasonal pond and the small mammal burrows. The closest USFWS designated critical habitat for CTS is approximately 1.9 miles away in unincorporated Alameda County. CTS occurs on the Property in a breeding, foraging, and dispersal capacity. The CNDDB lists one occurrence of Alameda whipsnake within five miles of the Property. The location of this occurrence (Occurrence #39; 1991) is approximately 4.9 miles southwest of the Property. The closest USFWS designated critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake (Unit 3) is approximately 4.7 miles southwest of the Property. This occurrence lies just outside of the formal boundary of designated critical habitat. Due to the lack of rocky outcropping/scrub habitat, no recent CNDDB occurrences (within 20 years), and the Property being surrounded by development on all three sides creating a dispersal barrier, Alameda whipsnake has a low potential to occur on the Property and is presumed absent. CNDDB has listed 11 occurrences of western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) (WPT) within five miles of the Property. The closest CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #1251, 2010) is located 0.75 miles east of the Property just north of Highway 580 within a pond. The permanent water located within the intermittent drainage in the northwest corner of the Property offers suitable habitat for WPT. Therefore, WPT has a moderate potential to occur on the Property. CNDDB lists two occurrences of fairy shrimp species (Branchinecta spp.) within five miles of the Property. The closest USFWS designated critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Unit C) is approximately 4.2 miles away in unincorporated Alameda County. There is suitable habitat onsite; however, wet season protocol surveys conducted in 2018 and 2022 and dry season protocol surveys conducted in 2022 discovered only the common versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli); no special status shrimp were observed during the surveys. Given these reasons, listed species of vernal pool fairy shrimp are presumed absent. No sign of bat use was observed or detected on the Property during the August 2022 survey; however, based on habitat suitability, it was determined that bats have a moderate to low potential to utilize the site in a roosting and foraging capacity. These bat species include pallid 3 710 bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). If project construction -related activities such as tree removal take place it is recommended that a bat habitat assessment be conducted by a qualified bat biologist during seasonal periods when bats are active to determine suitability of the on -site habitat. If special -status bat species are discovered, construction activities may be timed to minimize impacts and additional mitigation may be required. No sign of American badger (Taxidea taxus) or San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (SJKF) was observed or detected on the Property during the August 2022 survey. CNDDB lists five occurrences of American badger within five miles of the Property. The closest occurrence for American badger (Occurrence #349, 2004) was located 2 miles northwest of the Property adjacent to Camp Parks U.S. Army base. CNDDB lists one occurrence for SJKF within five miles of the Property. This occurrence (Occurrence #1031, 1975) was located 1.5 miles northwest of the Property near Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Due to the lack of substantial burrows, visual evidence, dispersal barriers and no recent CNDDB occurrence (within 20 years) for SJKF, American badger and SJKF both have a low potential to occur on the Property and are presumed absent. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Olberding Environmental, Inc. has conducted a biological resources analysis (biological constraints assessment) of the Dublin Fallon East Property, located in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. This biological resources analysis included a review of pertinent literature on relevant background information and habitat characteristics of the site. Our review included researching existing information in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) maintained by the CDFW and the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Also included was a review of information related to species of plants and animals that could potentially utilize the described habitats identified on and immediately surrounding the Property. To assist in the assessment, a field reconnaissance investigation of the Property was conducted on August 31, 2022. This report documents the methods, results, and conclusions for the reconnaissance -level survey associated with the biological resources analysis for the Property. Olberding Environmental conducted an initial biological resource analysis for each parcel, Chen and Anderson, on October 27, 2016. Several wet season protocol fairy shrimp surveys have been conducted by Olberding biologists on the following dates: April 11, May 10, and June 11, 2018; December 8, December 27, 2021; January 10, February 7, February 21, March 8, March 21, and April 5, 2022. Dry season protocol 4 711 shrimp surveys were conducted by Madrone Ecological on June 1, 2022. Helm Biological Consulting also conducted rearing of cysts with the dry samples between June and October 2022. Special status plant surveys were conducted by Olberding biologist on the following dates March 28, April 18, June 1, and June 28, 2017; March 17, April 12, May 3, June 28, and September 1, 2022. One nighttime CRLF survey was conducted by Olberding biologists on October 3, 2022. The results of all these surveys are discussed in further detail within their corresponding sections. 2.0 LOCATION The Property is located just north of Interstate 580, east of Fallon Road and south of Central Parkway within the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Croak Road intersects the Property, splitting the two parcels. Attachment 1, Figure 1 depicts the regional location of the Property in Alameda County; Attachment 1, Figure 2 illustrates the vicinity of the Property in relationship to the City of Dublin. Attachment 1, Figure 3 identifies the location of the Property on the USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Map for Dublin. An aerial photograph of the Property has been included as Attachment 1, Figure 4. Access to the Property is provided from Interstate 580. Take the El Charro/Fallon Road exit and turn north onto Fallon Road. Continue onto Fallon Road for 0.3 miles. And then turn right onto Croak Road. Take Croak Road for 1.0 miles until the road curves to the north; the Property will be located on the right (east) and left (west)sides of Croak Road. 3.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Property encompasses approximately 186.20 acres in a roughly rectangular shape bounded on the north by residential development and open space; the west by Fallon Road; the east by open space; and the south by Interstate 580. The Property is composed of two parcels, Chen and Anderson. The Chen parcel is the larger of the two and is located between Croak Road and Fallon Road. The Anderson parcel is located to the east of Croak Road. The Property supports five habitat types consisting of non-native annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, drainages, emergent marsh and riparian woodlands (Attachment 1, Figure 10). Rolling hills, located at the northern boundary, contain ephemeral drainages which capture and drain the hills into a more gradually sloped valley floor. An extension of an unnamed intermittent drainage flows through the northwestern corner of the Property adjacent to Croak Road. A road side ditch along Croak Road (located just off the western boundary of the Property) is characterized by cattails (Typha 5 712 latifolia), willow trees (Salix spp.), and hydrophytic foliage. During wet seasons this ditch overflows onto the Property creating a large complex of perennial marsh and seasonal wetland depressions within the Chen Parcel. This perennial marsh is suitable habitat to many wildlife species. The southern boundary of the Property contains several small wetlands intermingled within the grassland. An abandoned quarry pond in the northeast portion of the Property supports a seasonal pond feature and seasonal wetlands bordered by a small band of riparian woodland. Characteristic grassland vegetation across the Property includes wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum spp. leporinum), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), filaree (Erodium spp.), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), cattail (Typha spp.), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), flatsedge (Cyperuss eragrostis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and common spike rush (Eleocharis palustris) Common shrubs and trees include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), and willow trees. The Property also contains several ornamental trees within the far east -central portion, which was once developed. The topography of the Property consists of nearly level ground along the southern boundary adjacent to Croak Road, while undulating hillsides occur along the northern boundary above the valley floor; these hillslopes range between 346 feet to 480 feet above sea level. 4.0 REGULATORY SETTING 4.1 Federal Regulatory Setting 4.1.1 Plants and Wildlife The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq., as amended) prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would result in biological jeopardy to a plant or animal species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Act. Listed species are taxa for which proposed and final rules have been published in the Federal Register (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2022a). If a proposed project may jeopardize listed species, Section 7 of the ESA requires consideration of those species through formal consultations with the USFWS. Federal Proposed species (USFWS, 2022b) are species for which a proposed listing as Threatened or Endangered under ESA has been published in the Federal Register. If a proposed project may jeopardize proposed species, Section 7 of the ESA 6 713 affords consideration of those species through informal conferences with USFWS. The USFWS defines federal Candidate species as "those taxa for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded by other higher priority listing actions" (USFWS, 2022b). Federal Candidate species are not afforded formal protection, although USFWS encourages other federal agencies to give consideration to Candidate species in environmental planning. 4.1.2 Wetlands/Waters The federal government, acting through the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has jurisdiction over all "waters of the United States" as authorized by §404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and § 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 CFR Parts 320-330). Properties that cause the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States require permitting by the Corps. Actions affecting small areas of jurisdictional waters of the United States may qualify for a Nationwide Permit (NWP), provided conditions of the permit are met, such as avoiding impacts to threatened or endangered species or to important cultural sites. Properties that affect larger areas or which do not meet the conditions of an NWP require an Individual Permit. The process for obtaining an Individual Permit requires a detailed alternatives analysis and development of a comprehensive mitigation/monitoring plan. Waters of the United States are defined as territorial seas and traditionally navigable waters, tributaries, lakes and ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and adjacent wetlands. Under federal regulation, wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface of groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. (33 CFR Part 328.3(c)(16)). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. In addition, portions of the riparian habitat along a river or stream may be a wetland where the riparian vegetation is at or below the ordinary high water mark and thus also meets the wetland hydrology and hydric soil criteria. Navigable waters include all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tides, including the open ocean, tidal bays, and tidal sloughs. Navigable waters also include some large, non -tidal rivers and lakes, which are important for transportation in commerce. The jurisdictional limit over navigable waters extends laterally to the entire water surface and bed of the waterbody landward to the limits of the mean high tide line. For non -tidal rivers or lakes, which have been designated (by the Corps) to be navigable waters, the limit of jurisdiction along the shoreline is defined by the ordinary high water mark. "Other waters" refer to waters of the United States other than wetlands or navigable waters. Other waters include streams and ponds, which are generally open water bodies and are not vegetated. Other waters can be perennial or intermittent water bodies 7 714 and waterways. The Corps regulates other waters to the outward limit of the ordinary high water mark. Streams should exhibit a defined channel, bed and banks to be delineated as other waters. The Corps does not generally consider "non -tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land" to be jurisdictional waters of the United States (and such ditches would therefore not be regulated by the Corps (33 CFR Parts 320-330, November 13, 1986). Other areas generally not considered jurisdictional waters include: 1) artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland habitat if the irrigation ceased; 2) artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking of dry land to collect and retain water, used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; 3) waste treatment ponds; 4) ponds formed by construction activities including borrow pits until abandoned; and 5) ponds created for aesthetic reasons such as reflecting or ornamental ponds (33 CFR Part 328.3). However, the preamble also states "the Corps reserves the right on a case -by -case basis to determine that a particular waterbody within these categories" can be regulated as jurisdictional water. The EPA also has authority to determine jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on a case -by -case basis. Riparian habitat that is above the ordinary high water mark and does not meet the three -parameter criteria for a wetland would not be regulated as jurisdictional waters of the United States. 4.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Raptors are migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. Implementation of the take provisions requires that Property -related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (generally February 1 — September 1, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) or the loss of habitat upon which the birds depend, is considered "taking" and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Such taking would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (e.g., MBTA). 4.1.4 Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act In addition to protection under the MBTA, both the bald eagle and the golden eagle are also protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and amended several times since being enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald or 8 715 golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs (USFWS 2007). The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb" (USFWS 2007). For purposes of these guidelines, "disturb" means: "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior" (USFWS 2007). In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human - induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment (USFWS 2007). 4.2 State Regulatory Setting 4.2.1 Plants and Wildlife Property permitting and approval requires compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the 1984 California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the 1977 Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA). The CESA and NPPA authorize the California Fish and Game Commission to designate Endangered, Threatened and Rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (§§2050-2098, Fish & Game Code). The California Code of Regulations (Title 14, §670.5) lists animal species considered Endangered or Threatened by the State. The Natural Heritage Division of the CDFW administers the state rare species program. The CDFW maintains lists of designated Endangered, Threatened, and Rare plant and animal species (CDFW 2022a and 2022b). Listed species either were designated under the NPPA or designated by the Fish and Game Commission. In addition to recognizing three levels of endangerment, the CDFW can afford interim protection to candidate species while they are being reviewed by the Fish and Game Commission. The CDFW also maintains a list of animal species of special concern (CDFW 2022b), most of which are species whose breeding populations in California may face extirpation. Although these species have no legal status, the CDFW recommends considering them during analysis of 9 716 proposed property impacts to protect declining populations and avoid the need to list them as endangered in the future. The California Fish & Game Code §3503, 3503.5, and 3513 cover native bird protection. Mitigation for avoidance of impacts to nesting birds are typically necessary to comply with these Sections of the Fish and Game Code in CEQA and other permitting documents. Under provisions of § 15380(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA lead agency and CDFW, in making a determination of significance, must treat non -listed plant and animal species as equivalent to listed species if such species satisfy the minimum biological criteria for listing. In general, the CDFW considers plant species on List IA (Plants Presumed Extinct in California), List 1B (Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere), or List 2 (Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere) of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994) as qualifying for legal protection under §15380(d). Species on CNPS Lists 3 or 4 may, but generally do not, qualify for protection under this provision. Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species and CDFW Species of Special Concern, areas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habitat types. Habitat types considered sensitive include those listed on the CNDDB working list of "high priority" habitats (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California) (Holland 1986). 4.2.2 Wetlands/Waters The RWQCB regulates activities in wetlands and other waters through §401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter -Cologne Act. Section 401 requires a state water quality certification for properties subject to 404 regulations. Requirements of the certification include mitigation for loss of wetland habitat. In the San Francisco Bay region, the RWQCB may identify additional wetland mitigation beyond the mitigation required by the Corps. California Fish and Game Code §§1600-1607 require the CDFW be notified of any activity that could affect the bank or bed of any stream that has value to fish and wildlife. Upon notification, the CDFW has the discretion to execute a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The CDFW defines a stream as follows: ... a body of water that flows at least periodically... through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish and other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." (Source: Streambed Alteration Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). 10 717 In practice, CDFW authority is extended to any "blue line" stream shown on a USGS topographic map, as well as unmapped channels with a definable bank and bed. Wetlands, as defined by the Corps, need not be present for CDFW to exert authority. 4.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act According to Appendix G of the CEQA (CEQA 2022) Guidelines, a proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would: 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 CDFW and USFWS? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS? 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? 11 718 4.3 Local Regulatory Setting 4.3.1 City of Dublin Tree Ordinance — Chapter 5.60 — Heritage Tree Regulations The City of Dublin Code of Ordinance 5.60.50(a) Trees Subject to Or Exempt from Permit Requirements (a) Permit or Other Authorization Required for Heritage Trees. A permit or other authorization conferred in accordance with this chapter is required to remove, cause to be removed, or effectively remove any Heritage Tree from any property within the City of Dublin. (1) Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four inches or more in diameter measured at four to six inches above natural grade. (2) Any tree required to be preserved as part of an approved Development Plan Zoning Permit, Use Permit, Site Development Review or Subdivision Map. (3) A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. (b) No person may remove, cause to be removed, or effectively remove any heritage tree from any property within the city of Dublin without obtaining a permit from the Director. However, a permit is not required for the following: (1) Removal of a heritage tree that presents an immediate hazard to life or property, with the approval of the Director, City Engineer, Police Chief, Fire Chief or their designee; (2) Removal that is specifically approved as part of a city -approved planned development plan, conditional use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; (3) Pruning of heritage trees that conforms with the guidelines of the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Pruning Guidelines, current edition, on file in the Community Development Department. (c) Tree removal requested as part of the development of a property subject to zoning, subdivision, conditional use permit, or site development review application approval shall be reviewed and approved by the body having final authority over the entitlement application. (Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part). 12 719 4.3.2 East Dublin Specific Plan: 6.3.1 Stream Corridors and Wetlands All planning area streams, naturally incised channels, and wetland areas are subject to Corps of Engineers (COE) jurisdiction under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Proposed filling of any wetland area will require reviews and approval by the COE. The CDFW also has jurisdiction over streambeds in the planning area and requires notification, review, and potentially a permit for proposed alterations to any streambed. All riparian and emergent wetland habitats cannot be filled without first obtaining the appropriate permits and agreements from both the COE (Section 404 permits) and the CDFW (Stream Alteration Permit). Under the Plan, watercourses are to be preserved in open space corridors, and enhancement and stabilization will be required to restore these areas natural values. The restoration of planning area watercourses is intended to enhance the streams' natural functions as drainage channel, habitat areas, and wildlife corridors. • Policy 6-10: Riparian and wetland areas should be incorporated into greenbelt and open space areas as means of preserving their hydrologic and habitat value. Unavoidable loss of riparian habitat due to development should be replaced with similar habitat on a 3:1 in kind basis. Loss of wetlands must be mitigated consistent with the COE's current policy. • Policy 6-11: All stream corridors shall be managed to encourage revegetation with native plant species to enhance their natural appearance and improve habitat values. Active revegetation must be implemented by a professional revegetation/restoration specialist. Habitat management should be overseen by restoration ecologist. 5.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A special -status plant and wildlife species database search and review was conducted using the CNDDB and other sources. An additional search was conducted for special -status plants using CNPS Inventory on-line. Special -status species reports were accessed by searching the CNDDB database for the Dublin, Livermore, La Costa Valley, Niles, Tassajara, Altamont, Mendenhall Springs, and Byron Hot Springs USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles which surround the Property, and by examining those species that have been identified in the vicinity of the Property. These quadrangles will be henceforth noted as surrounding quads. The database report identified special -status species known to occur in the region or those that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Property. The CNDDB report was used to focus special -status species analysis of the site prior to the reconnaissance surveys. An Olberding Environmental biologist conducted a reconnaissance -level survey of the Property on August 31, 2022. The survey consisted of walking throughout the Property and evaluating the site and adjacent lands for potential biological resources. Existing conditions, observed plants 13 720 and wildlife, adjacent land use, soils and potential biological resource constraints were recorded during the visit. Plant and wildlife species observed within and adjacent to the Property during the reconnaissance survey are listed in Attachment 2, Table 1. Site photographs are provided in Attachment 3 of this document. Attachment 1, Figure 9 shows where each site photo was taken. The objectives of the field survey were to determine the potential presence or absence of special - status species habitat listed in the CNDDB database report and to identify any wetland areas that could be potentially regulated by the Corps, RWQCB, and/or CDFW (CNDDB 2022). In addition, the Olberding Environmental biologist looked for other potential sensitive species or habitats that may not have been obvious from the background database reports or research. Surveys conducted after the growing season or conducted outside of the specific flowering period for a special -status plant cannot conclusively determine the presence or absence of such plant species; therefore, site conditions and habitat type were used to determine potential for occurrence. When suitable habitat was observed to support a special -status plant or animal species, it was noted in the discussion for that particular species. Regulatory agencies evaluate the possibility of occurrence based on habitats observed on -site and the degree of connectivity with other special -status animal habitats in the vicinity of the Property. These factors are discussed in each special -status plant or animal section. Potential for occurrence of each special - status or protected plant and animal species was evaluated using the following criteria. • Present: The species has been recorded by CNDDB or other literature as occurring on the Property and/or was observed on the Property during the reconnaissance survey or protocol surveys. • May Occur: The species has been recorded by CNDDB or other literature as occurring within five miles of the Property, and/or was observed within five miles of the Property, and/or suitable habitat for the species is present on the Property or its immediate vicinity. • Not Likely to Occur: The species has historically occurred on or within five miles of the Property, but has no current records. The species occurs within five miles of the Property but only marginally suitable habitat conditions are present. The Property is likely to be used only as incidental foraging habitat or as an occasional migratory corridor. • Presumed Absent: The species will not occur on the Property due to the absence of suitable habitat conditions, and/or the lack of current occurrences. Alternatively, if directed or protocol -level surveys were done during the proper occurrence period and the species was not found, it is presumed absent. 14 721 Sources consulted for agency status information include USFWS (2022a) for federally listed species and CDFW (2022b) for State of California listed species. Based on information from the above sources, Olberding Environmental developed a target list of special -status plants and animals with the potential to occur within or in the vicinity of the Property (Attachment 2, Table 2). 5.1 Soils Evaluation The soils present on a property may determine if habitat on the site is suitable for certain special - status plants and animals. The host plants of some special -status invertebrates may also require specific soil conditions. In the absence of suitable soil conditions, special -status plants or animals requiring those conditions would be presumed absent. Information regarding soil characteristics for the Property was obtained by viewing the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey report for the Property (NRCS 2022). 5.2 Plant Survey Methods The purposes of the botanical surveys were (1) to characterize the habitat types (plant communities) of the study area; (2) to determine whether any suitable habitat for any special - status plant species occurs within the study area; and (3) to determine whether any sensitive habitat types (e.g., wetlands) occur within the study area. Site conditions and plant habitat surveys are important tools in determining the potential occurrence of plants not recorded during surveys (e.g., special -status plants) because presence cannot conclusively be determined if field surveys are conducted after the growing season or conducted outside a specific flowering period. 5.2.1 Review of Literature and Data Sources The biologist conducted focused surveys of literature and special -status species databases in order to identify special -status plant species and sensitive habitat types with potential to occur in the study area. Sources reviewed included the CNDDB occurrence records (CNDDB 2022) and CNPS Inventory (Skinner and Pavlik 1994) for the surrounding quads; and standard flora (The Jepson Manual 2012). From the above sources, a list of special -status plant species with potential to occur in the Property vicinity was developed (Attachment 2, Table 2). 5.2.2 Field Surveys A biologist from Olberding Environmental conducted a reconnaissance -level survey to determine habitat types and the potential for special -status plants based on the observed habitat types. All 15 722 vascular plant species that were identifiable at the time of the survey were recorded and identified using keys and descriptions in The Jepson Manual (2012). The habitat types occurring on the Property were characterized according to pre -established categories. In classifying the habitat types on the site, the generalized plant community classification schemes of A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer, Keeler -Wolf, and Evens 2009) were consulted. The final classification and characterization of the habitat types of the study area were based on field observations. 5.3 Wildlife Survey Methods The purposes of the wildlife survey were to identify special -status wildlife species and/or potential special -status wildlife habitats within the Property. 5.3.1 Review of Literature and Data Sources A focused review of literature and data sources was conducted in order to determine which special -status wildlife species had potential to occur in the vicinity of the Property. Current agency status information was obtained from USFWS (2022a) for species listed as Threatened or Endangered, as well as Proposed and Candidate species for listing, under the federal ESA; and from CDFW (2022a, 2022b) for species listed as Threatened or Endangered by the state of California under the CESA, or listed as "species of special concern" by CDFW. From the above sources, a list of special -status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Property vicinity was developed (Attachment 2, Table 2). 5.3.2 Field Surveys General Wildlife Survey — An Olberding Environmental biologist conducted a survey of species habitat within the entire study area, including visible portions of the adjacent properties. The purpose of the habitat survey was to evaluate wildlife habitats and the potential for any protected species to occur on or adjacent to the Property. Reconnaissance -Level Raptor Survey — A reconnaissance -level raptor survey was conducted on the Property. Observation points were established on the periphery of the site to view raptor activity over a forty -five -to -sixty -minute time period. This survey was conducted with the use of binoculars and notes were taken for each species occurrence. Additionally, utility poles and perch sites in the vicinity of the Property were observed. All raptor activity within and adjacent to the Property was recorded during the reconnaissance -level observation period. 16 723 Reconnaissance -Level Burrowing Owl Badeer/San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey — A reconnaissance -level survey was also conducted on the Property to identify potential burrow sites or use of on -site habitat for burrowing owl, American badger and San Joaquin kit fox. The general presence and density of suitable burrow sites (e.g., rodent burrows) was evaluated across the Property. Rare Plant Survey - Olberding Environmental conducted focused surveys of literature and special -status species databases in order to identify special -status plant species and sensitive habitat types with potential to occur in the study area. The field surveys followed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2018) and CNPS (2001) published survey guidelines. These guidelines state that special -status surveys should be conducted at the proper time of year when special -status and locally significant plants are both evident and identifiable. Blooming periods for each surveyed species can be found in Table 2. Protocol -Level Listed Large Branchiopod Surveys — All potential habitat was adequately sampled with dipnets at 14-day intervals after the initial inundation of suitable habitat. Sampling continued until habitats dried or a minimum of 90 day of inundation had occurred as specified in the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2015). California Red -leaked Frog and Western Pond Turtle Survey — A visual survey was conducted by OEI biologists, on September 20, 2022, for the presence or absence of western pond turtle and California red -legged frog. Visual day time surveys for these species were also conducted previously on June 10 and June 20, 2022. One nighttime survey for California red -legged frog was conducted on October 3, 2022, this survey also included western pond turtle. Any areas of suitable aquatic habitat located throughout the Property were surveyed as well as any upland areas located within 200 feet of suitable aquatic habitat. Due to the sensitivity to approach, binoculars were utilized to scan the banks of the aquatic habitat every few hundred feet. Transects were walked across all accessible parts of the Property with a primary focus on the aquatic habitats. All turtles and frogs encountered were closely examined through binoculars to determine species. 6.0 RESULTS FOR GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The search and review of the CNDDB database reports revealed the occurrence of special -status plant and wildlife species that occur in the habitats found within the Property boundaries (CNDDB 2022). The CNDDB database and background data were reviewed for the surrounding quads. Animal occurrences shown on Attachment 1, Figure 5 and plant occurrences shown on Attachment 1, Figure 6 are located within 5 miles of the Property and were reviewed for their potential to occur on the Property based on general habitat types. Results of the species review is 17 724 tabulated on Attachment 2, Table 2. Critical habitat within the surrounding quads is shown on Attachment 1, Figure 7. 6.1 Soil Evaluation Results The NRCS (2019) reports seven soil types within the Property. A map of this soil type can be found in Attachment 1, Figure 8. The soil type mapped included the following: • Cc: Clear Lake Clay-- 0-3 percent slopes. Clear Lake clay soils can be found at elevations between 25 and 2,000 feet with 0 to 2 percent slopes. The composition of this soil type within the Property consists of 85 percent Clear Lake and similar soils, and 15 percent of minor components including Pescadero (4%), Cropley (4%), Conejo (4%), and Unnamed (3%). The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that formed in fine textured alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. Clear Lake soils are in basins and in swales of drainage ways. Clear Lake soils exhibit slow to very slow permeability and negligible to high runoff. • DvC: Diablo Clay -- Very deep 3-15 percent slopes. Very deep Diablo clay soils are found within the lower reaches of the intermittent drainages eat of the residence. This soil is found between 300 and 1,700 feet. Mean annual precipitation is between 10 and 15 inches. Very deep Diablo clay is a well drained soil. From zero to 15 inches it is comprised of clay, and below 15 inches, silty clay. • LaC, LaD LaE2: Linne Clay Loam-3-15 percent slopes, 15-30 percent slopes, 30- 45 percent slopes eroded. The Linne series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from fairly soft shale and sandstone. These soils are on gently sloping to very steep uplands from 100 to 2,200 feet. The composition of this soil type within the Property consists of 85 percent Linne and similar soils and 15 percent of minor components including Diablo (5%), Altamont (5%), Clear Lake (3%), and Pescadero (2%). Typically, Linne soils exhibit medium to very rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. These soils are used mainly for rangeland with some areas farmed to small grains, related crops, and almonds. Naturalized and native vegetation is annual grasses and forbs, some live oak, and coastal sage. This series shows no frequency of ponding or flooding and is nonsaline. Its stratified layers consist of the following (colors are for dry soil unless otherwise stated): 18 725 Ap--0 to 9 inches; very dark gray clay loam, black moist; very hard, friable; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). Al2--9 to 14 inches; dark gray clay loam, black moist; very hard, friable; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). A13--14 to 29 inches; gray clay loam, very dark gray moist; very hard, friable; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). AC--29 to 32 inches; gray and light gray sandy clay loam, gray and light brownish gray moist; very hard, friable; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). Clca--32 to 36 inches; white fine sandy loam, very pale brown and white moist; extremely hard, firm; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). C2r--36 to 51 inches; white mudstone, light gray and pale yellow moist; very hard, firm; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). • RdA, RdB: Rincon Clay Loam -- 0-3 percent slopes, 3-7 percent slopes. The Rincon series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium from sedimentary rocks. Rincon soils are on old alluvial fans and both stream and marine terraces at elevations of 20 to 2,000 feet. The composition of this soil type within the Property consists of 85 percent Rincon and similar soils and 6 percent of minor components including Cropley clay (3%) and Hillgate silt loam (3%). Typically, Rincon soils exhibit slow to rapid runoff and slow permeability. These soils are used for irrigated citrus, deciduous fruits, row crops, and alfalfa. Some dry farming for grain and pasture. Natural vegetation is annual grasses and forbs. This series shows no frequency of ponding or flooding and is non -saline. Its stratified layers consist of the following (colors are for dry soil unless otherwise stated): Ap--0 to 4 inches; dark gray silty clay loam, very dark gray moist; hard, firm, sticky; slightly acid (pH 6.5). Al2--4 to 16 inches; dark gray silty clay loam, very dark gray moist; very hard, firm, sticky; slightly acid (pH 6.5). B21t--16 to 25 inches; dark grayish brown sandy clay, very dark grayish brown moist; extremely hard, very firm, sticky; neutral (pH 7.0). B22t--25 to 31 inches; dark grayish brown sandy clay, very dark grayish brown moist- 19 726 coarse splotches of brown, dark brown moist; very hard, very firm, sticky; moderately alkaline (pH 7.9). B3tca--3 1 to 40 inches; brown sandy clay loam, dark brown moist; very hard, firm, sticky; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). Cca--40 to 60 inches; yellowish brown stratified sandy clay loam and sandy loam, dark yellowish brown moist; hard, firm, sticky; moderately alkaline (pH 8.0). 6.2 Plant Survey Results 6.2.1 Floristic Inventory and Habitat Characterization The Property supports four habitat types consisting of non-native annual grassland, seasonal wetland/pond, emergent marsh, riparian woodland and drainages. In classifying the habitat types on the Property, generalized plant community classification schemes were used (Sawyer, Keeler - Wolf, and Evens 2009). The final classification and characterization of the habitat type of the Property was based on field observations. Plant species that occurred within 5 miles of the Property are shown in Attachment 1, Figure 6. The habitat type and a description of the plant species present within the habitat type are provided below. The habitats found on the Property are mapped on Attachment 1, Figure 10. Dominant plant species are also noted. A complete list of plant species observed on the Property can be found within Attachment 2, Table 1. Non-native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grassland represents the dominant plant community on the Property. As stated earlier, the Properties have been primarily used for grazing in the past. As a result, non-native annual grasses of European origin make up the dominant species. These species include wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum spp. leporinum), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), among others. Common non-native forbs observed during field surveys include black mustard (Brassica nigra), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), filaree (Erodium spp.), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). 20 727 Drainage Five drainages exist on the Chen Parcel. One intermittent channel lies within the riparian woodland on the northwestern corner while the other four are spread within the hills of the north - central part of the Property. Dominant vegetation within the drainage features consisted primarily of salt grass (Distichilis spicata), iris leaf rush (Juncus xiphioides) and rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) with sporadic yerba mansa (Anamopsis californica) and watercress (Nasturtium officinale) within the northwestern corner. Four additional ephemeral channels exist across the northern portion of the Chen Parcel. These channels vegetation characteristics are similar to the non-native grassland composition. Seasonal Wetland/Pond The seasonal wetlands across the Property are characterized by Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), seaside barley (Hordeum marinum), Baltic rush, (Juncus balticus), bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), common toad rush (Juncus bufonius), beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), timothy grass (Phleum alpinum), bulrush (Typha latifolia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), hyssop lossestrife (Lythrym hyssopifolia), brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Congdon's tarplant, and rabbit's foot grass. Emergent Marsh The emergent marsh contains water year-round and is primarily characterized by a large stand of cattails (Typha sp.). The cattail stand covers the entire emergent marsh along with a few scattered willow trees (Salix spp.) present along the boundary of Croak Road. Several hydrophytic species are present within the willow undergrowth such as, cutleaf water parsnip (Berula erecta), prickly lettuce, and rabbits foot grass. Riparian Woodland A group of willow (Salix sp) and cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) surround the quarry pond within the northern portion of the Anderson Parcel. On the Chen Parcel, a dense group of willow, cottonwood, and coast live oak (Quercus agiifolia) trees surround the intermittent drainage within the northwestern corner of the Property. Special -Status Plant Species Special -status plant species include species listed as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the USFWS (2022a) or by the State of California (CDFW 2022a). Federal Proposed and Candidate species (USFWS, 2022b) are also special -status species. Special -status species also include 21 728 species listed on List 1A, List 1B, or List 2 of the CNPS Inventory (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994; CNPS 2022). All species in the above categories fall under state regulatory authority under the provisions of CEQA, and may also fall under federal regulatory authority. Considered special - status species are species included on List 3 (Plants About Which We Need More Information —A Review List) or List 4 (Plants of Limited Distribution —A Watch List) of the CNPS Inventory. These species are considered to be of lower sensitivity and generally do not fall under specific state or federal regulatory authority. Specific mitigation considerations are not generally required for List 3 and List 4 species. Attachment 2, Table 2 includes a list of special -status plants with the potential to occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Property based on a review of the surrounding quads. The special -status plant species identified by the CNDDB as potentially occurring on the Property are known to grow only from specific habitat types. The specific habitats or "micro -climate" necessary for many of the plant species to occur are not found within the boundaries of the Property. The habitats necessary for the CNDDB reported plant species consist of valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodlands, chaparral, playas, chenopod scrub, adobe clay soils, alkaline soils, serpentine soils, sandy soils, gravelly soils, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, coastal dunes, coastal bluff scrub, coastal salt marsh, vernal pools, seeps, meadows and sinks, marshes or swamps, riparian woodlands, on slopes near drainages, closed cone coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest, redwood forest, lower montane coniferous forest, and broad -leafed upland forest. Occurrences of special -status plants within a five -mile radius of the point roughly representing the center of the Property are described in detail. Occurrence distance from the Property is estimated from the center point found in Attachment 1, Figure 6. Based on habitat types and nearby CNDDB occurrences, a total of 12 special plants were determined to have a potential to occur on the Property. During a 2022 plant survey, a species of unknown popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.) was observed to be present on the Property. However, hairless popcorn flower is presumed extinct in California, therefore, it has a low potential to occur on site and is presumed absent. Three special status plants were observed on the Property during the August 2022 survey. These species are discussed in further detail below. Congdon's Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). CNPS List 1B. Congdon's tarplant is a member of the genus Centromadia in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It is one of four subspecies of Parry's tarplant (Centromadia parryi). Congdon's tarplant is a prostrate to erect, annual herb with rigidly spine -tipped leaves and yellow ray- and disk -flowers (head). It occurs in valley and foothill grasslands in moist alkaline soils and blooms between June and 22 729 November. Historically, Congdon's tarplant was distributed from Solano County south to San Luis Obispo County. In addition to this species being present on the Property, 14 CNDDB occurrences of this species have occurred within five miles of the Property, with the closest occurrence (Occurrence #11) from 1999, intersecting with the Property within the annual grassland between Fallon Road and Croak Road. It was estimated that approximately 76,000 plants were observed. Saline Clover (Trifolium hydrophilum). CNPS List 1B. Saline clover is member of the pea family, Fabaceae. Purple flowers bloom between April and June. This species is found in marshes and swamps, mesic valley and foothill grasslands with alkaline soils, and vernal pools, between 0 and 300 meters in elevation. It is thought to occur in Alameda, Colusa, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, Santa Clara, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. It is threatened by development and current fieldwork is needed to determine if populations still exist in many counties. The CNDDB lists one occurrence of this species within five miles of the Property. This occurrence (Occurrence #7) is located 500 feet west of the Property within a vernal pool habitat. 60 plants were observed in 2002 and several were observed in 2006. This species was also verified as a new occurrence within the Property during the August 2022 survey. Approximately 100 saline clover individuals were observed within the emergent wetland habitat. San Joaquin Spearscale (Extriplex joaquiniana). CNPS List 1B. San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the family Chenopodiaceae. Leaves of the San Joaquin spearscale are ovate to triangular, with fine gray scales above. Flowers are dense and spike or panicle -like with dark brown seeds. It is found in Alameda, Contra Costa, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito, Solano, and Yolo counties. It is considered extirpated in Santa Clara, San Joaquin, and Tulare counties. Habitat for the San Joaquin spearscale includes chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands with alkaline soils. Blooming occurs between April and October. In addition to this species being present on the Property, 11 CNDDB occurrences of this species have occurred within five miles of the Property, with the closest occurrence (Occurrence #68), located approximately 1300 feet west of the Property. During this occurrence approximately 200-300 plants were observed. In 2022, approximately 70 San Joaquin spearscale individuals were observed in the southern central portion of the Chen Parcel and along the dirt access road on the Anderson Parcel. 23 730 Nine special status plants species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur on the Property based on present habitat types and nearby CNDDB occurrences. Each of the following species' closest CNDDB occurrence is located within 5 miles of the Property. Additional information on the required habitat types for each species can be found in Table 2. • Large flowered-fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) • Alkali milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener) No nearby occurrences. • Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata) (Occurrence #11, 1999, 4.9 miles) • Brittlescale (Atriplex cordulata) (Occurrence # 65, 2000, 2.9 miles) • Lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula) (Occurrence #46, 2010, 4.9 miles) • Big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) No nearby occurrences. • Round -leaved filaree (California macrophylla) No nearby occurrences. • Prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) (Occurrence #61, 2010, intersects the Property) • Long -styled sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca longistyla) (Occurrence #2, 1943, 3 miles; most recent occurrence, Occurrence #3, 2003) Each of the above nine species were surveyed for during the 2017 and 2022 rare plant surveys conducted by Olberding Environmental during their appropriate blooming period. They were found to be absent from the Property. 6.3 Wildlife Survey Results 6.3.1 General Wildlife Species and Habitats A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Property can be found in Attachment 2, Table 1. Wildlife species commonly occurring within habitat types present on the Property are discussed below: Non-native Annual Grassland The annual grassland habitat provides many foraging opportunities for a wide range of species. Passerine species observed during the survey include California towhee (Melozone crissalis), 24 731 black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) and white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys). Other avian species observed include American crow (Corvus bracyrynchos), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). The red-tailed hawk, Coopers hawk, and American kestrel were raptor species observed during the survey; however, the grassland habit could potentially be utilized for nesting and/or foraging by other species including ferruginous hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, white-tailed kite, golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, red -shouldered hawk, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier and several owl species including the burrowing owl. Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and coyote (Canis latrans) were observed foraging during the August 2022 survey. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionous) droppings were seen throughout the Property. Extensive burrow colonies created by small mammals including, but not limited to, Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and various vole species (Microtus spp.) were also observed. The cover from the grassland habitat and the extensive burrow complexes offer suitable refuge habitat for various amphibian and reptile species including special status species such as the California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), and California red -legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii). Numerous western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) were observed throughout the Property. Other reptile species including Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) and California king snake (Lampropeltis californiae) may also occur. Seasonal Wetland/Pond/Emergent Marsh The seasonal wetlands offer suitable habitat for various wildlife species. During the wet months, the full ponds can offer foraging habitat for avian species including but not limited to tricolored blackbird, killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba) and various waterfowl species. Red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and American crow were observed utilizing the large southwestern wetland during the August 2022 survey. CTS larvae were observed to be present within the quarry pond during recent protocol -level surveys conducted for listed special -status branchiopods in 2018 and 2022. The emergent marsh offers suitable habitat for several wildlife species including the special status CRLF. This feature is inundated with water year-round providing consistent habitat and 25 732 foraging opportunities for CRLF in addition to other amphibians such as Sierran tree frog (Pseudacris sierran). Multiple juvenile CRLF were observed during October 2022 within the road side ditch flowing alongside the emergent marsh and Croak Road. Other species observed foraging within this habitat include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), coyote (Canis Latrans), Wilson's snipe (Gallinago delicata), black phoebe, Anna's hummingbird, and American crow. Drainage The intermittent drainage feature offers suitable breeding, foraging and dispersal habitat for various amphibian species including CRLF, sierran tree frog and western toad. CRLF adults, juvenile and larvae were observed within the intermittent drainage during day and nighttime surveys completed in October 2022. The ephemeral drainage features can provide habitat for amphibian species during and immediately after rain events but will mostly act as non-native grassland and provide similar habitat for the species listed above. Riparian Woodland Although limited in extent, the riparian woodland area within the Property may provide suitable nesting habitat for a number of passerine and raptor avian species, as well as provide suitable roosting habitat for bats including potentially sensitive species such as the pallid and Yuma myotis bats. CRLF and other amphibian species are known to use this habitat for foraging and breeding such as the sierran tree frog. BIRDS Tricolored Blackbird (ALelaius tricolor). Federal Species of Special Concern, California Species of Special Concern. A close relative of the red -winged blackbird, the tricolored blackbird is distinguished by a white patch underscoring the bright red epaulettes that are prominent in the males of both species. Often found co -mingling in large flocks with red -winged blackbirds, this species is highly colonial. Nesting colonies usually occur in marshy habitats, often in large stands of blackberry, thistle, mustard and cattail. The CNDDB listed six occurrences of tricolored blackbird within five miles of the Property. The closest occurrence (Occurrence #254) was observed approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the Property where several freshwater marshes are located. The willows located within the wetland habitat and the riparian corridors offer suitable habitat for foraging and nesting. Therefore, there is a high potential for tricolored blackbirds to occur in a nesting and/or foraging capacity. 26 733 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal Species of Special Concern, California Species of Special Concern. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the burrowing owl is as a "candidate" species. Candidate species are animals and plants that may warrant official listing as threatened or endangered, but there is no conclusive data to give them this protection at the present time. As a candidate species, burrowing owls receive no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However, this species does receive some legal protection from the U.S. through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which forbids the destruction of the birds and active nests. In California, the burrowing owl considered a "species of special concern." Burrowing owls are ground dwelling members of the owl family and are small brown to tan colored birds with bold spots and barring. Burrowing owls generally require open annual grassland habitats in which to nest, but can be found on abandoned lots, roads, airports, and other urban areas. Burrowing owls generally use abandoned California ground squirrel holes for their nesting burrow but are also known to use pipes or other debris for nesting purposes. Burrowing owls prefer annual grassland habitats with low vegetative cover. The breeding season for burrowing owls occurs from March through August. Burrowing owls often nest in loose colonies about 100 yards apart. They lay three to twelve eggs from mid -May to early June. The female incubates the clutch for about 28 days, while the male provides her with food. The young owls begin appearing at the burrow's entrance two weeks after hatching and leave the nest to hunt for insects on their own after about 45 days. The chicks can fly well at six weeks old. The CNDDB listed 26 occurrences of burrowing owl within five miles of the Property. The closest occurrence (Occurrence #457) was observed approximately 0.75 miles south of the Property adjacent to the Livermore airport. The Property has suitable grassland habitat for burrowing owl, and an abundance of ground squirrel burrows were observed on site. For these reasons the burrowing owl has a high potential to occur on the Property in nesting and foraging capacity and is likely to occur. California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). California Species of Special Concern. The California horned lark is one of five subspecies of the horned lark. Males of this species have a distinct crest of black feathers originating above the eye that gives the appearance of "horns." The subspecies actia is distinguished from other subspecies by the pale -yellow shading that is restricted to the face and throat. This species typically inhabits dry, open grasslands and alkali flats. California horned larks prefer open terrain where they construct nests on the ground, often in sparsely vegetated areas. The highest nesting densities are generally found in annual grassland and oak savannah habitats in the foothill regions. 27 734 The CNDDB did not list the California horned lark as occurring within five miles of the Property. However, the annual grassland within and surrounding the Property offers potentially suitable nesting habitat. In addition, foraging opportunities occur across the Property. Given the information above the California horned lark has moderate potential to occur on the Property in a foraging and nesting capacity. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). Federal Species of Concern, CDFW: Fully Protected. The white-tailed kite is falcon -shaped with a long white tail. This raptor has black patches on the shoulders that are highly visible while the bird is flying or perching. White-tailed kites forage in annual grasslands, farmlands, orchards, chaparral, and at the edges of marshes and meadows. They are found nesting in trees and shrubs such as willows (Salix sp.), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) often near marshes, lakes, rivers, or ponds. This raptor often hovers while inspecting the ground below for prey. The White-tailed Kite eats mainly small mammals, as well as some birds, lizards, and insects. Annual grasslands are considered good foraging habitat for white-tailed kites, which will forage in human -impacted areas. The CNDDB listed two occurrences of white-tailed kite within five miles of the Property. The closest occurrence (Occurrence #81) was observed approximately 2.9 miles northwest of the Property within a coast live oak savanna near the intersections of Contra Costa County and Alameda County. The large trees present within and surrounding the Property offer suitable nesting habitat. In addition, foraging opportunities occur throughout the Property in the grassland habitat. Given the information above the white-tailed kite has high potential to occur on the Property in a nesting and foraging capacity. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Federal Species of Special Concern, California Species of Special Concern. The loggerhead shrike is a black and white perching bird with a black face mask that extends over the bill. A common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. It prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. It occurs only rarely in heavily urbanized areas, but is often found in open cropland. This species hunts large insects, small rodents and even small birds. Loggerhead shrikes are known for their habit of impaling their food on thorns or barb wire for future consumption. The range and habitat for the loggerhead shrike has steadily shrunk due to human development within grasslands; however, this species is often found on lands grazed by cattle that are fenced with barb wire. These birds use shrubs, dense trees, and thickets of vegetation for nesting sites. 28 735 The CNDDB did not list the loggerhead shrike as occurring within five miles of the Property. However, the trees and shrubs within and surrounding the Property offer potentially suitable nesting habitat. In addition, foraging opportunities occur across the Property. Given the information above the loggerhead shrike has high potential to occur on the Property in a foraging and nesting capacity. Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius). California Species of Special Concern. Northern harriers require open annual grassland habitats and prefer dense ground vegetation or grasses in which to build nests. They are distinguished from other similar species by their prominent white rump patch. Males are pale gray in color, while females are brown with dark streaking on the breast. These birds are ground nesters and utilize habitats ranging from annual grassland to seasonal wetland for this purpose. This species breeds once per season, with primary females breeding from April to July, and secondary females breeding from May through September. Northern harriers' nest on the ground usually preferring dense vegetation clumps for cover such as willows, grasses, sedges, reeds, bulrushes, and cattails. An average of four eggs per clutch will take 28 to 36 days to hatch with the young fledging 30 to 35 days after hatching. The CNDDB lists one occurrence of the northern harrier within five miles of the Property. This occurrence (Occurrence #27; 1992) is located 3.4 miles north of the Property just east of Tassajara Road. The open grassland provides nesting and foraging opportunities for this species. Given the information above, and the fact the occurrence is not recent, the northern harrier has a moderate potential to occur on the Property in a nesting and foraging capacity. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrvsaetos). California Species of Special Concern, State Protected. The golden eagle is typically found in open grasslands, pastures, and oak woodland, often near lakes and rivers. Their plumage is dark brown overall, with some white at the base of the tail, and golden -to -blonde feathers on the nape of the neck. The bill and talons are black and the cere (soft membrane that covers the nostrils) and feet are yellow. Immature birds have a broad, white tail band with a black edge and large white patches on the undersides of the wings at the base of the primary feathers. Adult males weigh nine pounds with adult females weighing 12.5 pounds. Masters of soaring, golden eagle can reach speeds up to 200 mph with their 6.5-to-7.5-foot wingspans. The CNDDB lists one occurrence of golden eagle within five miles of the Property. This occurrence (Occurrence #84) is located 3.1 miles north of the Property, just east of Tassajara Road. There is a known active golden eagle nest present at this location. The open grassland provides ample foraging opportunities for this species; however, there are no large trees present 29 736 within the immediate vicinity to support this species in a nesting capacity. Given the information above, the golden eagle has a high potential to occur on the Property in a foraging capacity only. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco perejirinus anatum). Federally Delisted, State Endangered, CDFW: Fully Protected. The American peregrine falcon is a wide-bodied raptor with a dark nearly black head resembling a hood. Steel blue back and tail, pale to white breast and underwings. Small black horizontal bars on belly, legs, underwings and undertail. Black mustache markings, yellow base of bill, eye rings, legs and feet. Forages on the wing, catching prey in the air or on the ground. It is found mostly in open terrain including farmland, marshes and even urban environments. Prey items include waterbirds, rock doves, and other small birds and mammals. Peregrine falcons need tall sheltered areas such as cliffs or tall buildings for cover. They are increasingly able to exploit urban habitats for both foraging and nesting sites. The CNDDB lists one occurrences of the American peregrine falcon within five miles of the Property. This occurrence (Occurrence #56) located 2.8 miles from the Property within a rocky outcropping in chapparal habitat. The open grassland provides suitable foraging opportunities for this species. Given the information above, the American peregrine falcon has a high potential to occur on the Property in a foraging capacity only. In addition to the raptor species listed above, the following raptor and owl species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, also have a high to moderate potential to occur on the Property in a nesting and/or foraging capacity. More information regarding their habitat and nesting and foraging behavior can be found in Table 2. • American kestrel (Falco sparverius); observed foraging during the August 2022 survey. • Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii); observed foraging during the August 2022 survey. • Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); observed nesting behavior during a 2022 protocol shrimp survey and foraging during the August 2022 survey. • Red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus); observed foraging during a 2022 protocol shrimp survey. • Great -horned owl (Bubo scandiacus) • Western screech owl (Megascops kennicottii) • Barn owl (Tyto alba) 30 737 • Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) There were two occurrences on CNDDB of ferruginous hawk (Occurrences #26 and #67) within five miles of the Property. However, the Property is not within the nesting range of ferruginous hawk, therefore, this species will be present on a foraging capacity only. MAMMALS Special -status Bats Bats (Order - Chiroptera) are the only mammals capable of "true" flight. They are nocturnal feeders and locate their prey, which consists of small to medium sized insects by echolocation. Bats consume vast amounts of insects making them very effective pest control agents. They may eat as much as their weight in insects per day. Maternity roosts comprised of only females, may be found in buildings or mine shafts with temperatures up to 40 degrees Celsius and a high percentage of humidity to ensure rapid growth in the young. Female bats give birth to only one or two young annually and roost in small or large numbers. Males may live singly or in small groups, but scientists are still unsure of the whereabouts of most males in summer. Special -status bats with the potential to occur on the Property are listed below: • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) The CNDDB listed pallid bat (Occurrence #331) and Townsend's big -eared bat (Occurrence #422) as occurring within the 5-mile radius of the Property. The habitats provided on and near the Property provide an array of insects allowing for abundant foraging opportunities. Given the presence of suitable roosting habitat and foraging opportunities; the pallid bat has a moderate potential to occur on the Property in a foraging and roosting capacity. Townsend's bats are very sensitive to disturbance; therefore, as this Property is adjacent to a busy highway and residential development, it is unlikely that Townsend's bats would find the suitable roosting habitat and are not likely to occur. Additionally, other non -special status bat species such as the Yuma myotis could also utilize the above habitats in a roosting and foraging capacity. Given the above information, multiple species of bats have a moderate potential to occur on the Property in a roosting and foraging capacity. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Federally Endangered, State Threatened. The San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) has a slim body with large, conspicuous ears, and a long, bushy, black tipped tail. It is the smallest canid species in North America. The SJKF lives in annual grassland habitats where friable soils are present in which they may excavate den sites. The 31 738 general habitat requirement for the kit fox is annual grasslands or grassy open habitat stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Food requirements for the SJKF are rodents, insects, and even garbage in urbanized areas. Grassland habitats with a large rodent prey base and loose textured soils are thought to provide the best habitat for the SJKF. A large band of potential habitat is indicated as a corridor in which the SJKF may occur in the southwestern corner of the Brentwood quadrangle map. On the Antioch South quadrangle map this zone continues northwest across the map and is located over two and a half miles south of the Property. The Property lies well outside the band of potential SJKF habitat identified by the CNDDB. The corridor that has been identified as potential habitat for the SJKF by the CNDDB was developed by using a one mile radius around specific point locations where scat or a den site was documented. The composite of all the point locations for SJKF overlaid together during a 20-year period combined to define the corridor that has been identified by the database. The goal of the database was to identify a habitat zone for SJKF rather than unrelated point locations, as the SJKF is highly mobile and will use a larger area than what a point location would represent. The CNDDB lists one occurrence for SJKF within five miles of the Property. This occurrence (Occurrence #1031, 1975) was located 1.5 miles northwest of the Property near Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Due to the lack of substantial burrows, dispersal barriers, and no recent CNDDB occurrence (within 20 years) SJKF has a low potential to occur on the Property and is presumed absent. American Badger (Taxidea taxus). California Species of Special Concern. This large member of the weasel family is an excellent digger, with a flat body with short, stout legs ideally suited for digging burrows. A distinctive white stripe extends from the nose, and over the back of the head, that is rather small in proportion to its body. This species has long foreclaws which they use to excavate dens for refuge, food caches, and birthing sites. Their den entrance is generally shaped like a sideways "D" with the excavated soil piled outside of the entrance. Found in open plains, prairies, forests and grasslands, this carnivorous species feeds on ground squirrels, mice, and gophers, but will also consume rattlesnakes and other reptiles, and ground -nesting birds such as burrowing owl. Primarily solitary outside of the breeding season, badgers mate during late summer, but do not give birth until March or April. The CNDDB lists five occurrences of American badger within five miles of the Property. The closest occurrence for American badger (Occurrence #349, 2004) was located 2 miles northwest of the Property adjacent to Camp Parks U.S. Army base. Due to the lack of substantial burrows 32 739 and visual evidence, American badger has a low potential to occur on the Property and is presumed absent. AMPHIBIANS California Red -Legged Frog (Rana draytonii). Federally Threatened, California Species of Special Concern. California red -legged frog (CRLF) was listed as a Federal threatened species on May 31, 1996 (61 FR 25813) and is considered threatened throughout its range. If a proposed Property may jeopardize listed species, Section 7 of the ESA requires consideration of those species through formal consultations with the USFWS. Federal Proposed species (USFWS 2022) are species for which a proposed listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA has been published in the Federal Register. If a proposed Property may jeopardize proposed species, Section 7 of the ESA affords consideration of those species through informal conferences with USFWS. On April 13, 2006, USFWS designated critical habitat for the CRLF under the ESA. In total, approximately 450,288 acres fell within the boundaries of critical habitat designation. A new ruling by the USFWS on March 17, 2010, revised the designation of critical habitat for CRLF (75 FR 12815 12959). In total, approximately 1,636,609 acres of critical habitat in 27 California counties fall within the boundaries of the final revised critical habitat designation. This rule became effective on April 16, 2010. The CRLF is a rather large frog, measuring one and a half to five inches in length. They are reddish -brown to gray in color, with many poorly defined dark specks and blotches. Dorsolateral folds are present. The underside of the CRLF is washed with red on the lower abdomen and hind legs. The CRLF has a dark mask bordered by a light stripe on the jaw, smooth eardrums, and not fully webbed toes. The male has enlarged forearms and swollen thumbs. Its vocals consist of a series of weak throaty notes, rather harsh, and lasting two to three seconds. Breeding occurs from December to March with egg masses laid in permanent bodies of water. The CRLF is found in lowlands, foothill woodland and grasslands, near marshes, lakes, ponds or other water sources. These amphibians require dense shrubby or emergent vegetation closely associated with deep still or slow -moving water. Generally, these frogs favor intermittent streams with water at least two and a half feet deep and where the shoreline has relatively intact emergent or shoreline vegetation. CRLF is known from streams with relatively low gradients and those waters where introduced fish and bullfrogs are absent. CRLF are known to take refuge upland in small mammal burrows during periods of high-water flow. CRLF occurs west of the Sierra Nevada -Cascade and in the Coast Ranges along the entire length of the state. Historically, they occurred throughout the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills south to northern Baja 33 740 California. Now they are found from Sonoma and Butte Counties south to Riverside County, but mainly in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties. The CNDDB listed 40 occurrences of the CRLF occurring within five miles of the Property. There were two occurrences (Occurrence #279 and #860) which intersect with the Property. The seasonal ponds and intermittent drainage offer suitable habitat to support breeding, upland refuge and dispersal. The seasonal pond offers adequate water during the wet months that support breeding, while the surrounding small mammal burrows provide upland refuge. The northern half of the Property intersects with USFWS designated critical habitat for CRLF (Unit CCS-2B) (Attachment 1, Figure 7). CRLF were found on the Property during a protocol- level surveys conducted for special -status branchiopods in 2018 and again while presence/absence surveys took place for CRLF in October 2022. CRLF are known to occur on site in a breeding and foraging capacity. California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Federally Threatened, State Threatened. Adult California tiger salamanders (CTS) inhabit rolling grassland and oak savanna. Adults spend most of the year in subterranean retreats such as rodent burrows, but may be found on the surface during dispersal to and from breeding sites. The preferred breeding sites are vernal pools and other temporary ponds. However, CTS may use permanent manmade ponds as breeding habitat. CTS adults begin migrating to ponds after the first heavy rains of fall and can be found in or around the breeding ponds during and after winter rainstorm events. In extremely dry years, CTS may not reproduce. After mating, females lay several small clusters of eggs, which contain from one to over 100 eggs. The eggs are deposited on both emergent and submerged vegetation, as well as submerged detritus. A minimum of ten weeks is required to complete larval development through metamorphosis, at which time the larvae will normally weigh about ten grams. Larvae remaining in pools for a longer time period can grow to much larger sizes. Upon metamorphosis, juvenile CTS migrate in large masses at night from the drying breeding sites to refuge sites. Prior to this migration, the juveniles spend anywhere from a few hours to a few days near the pond margin. Adult CTS are largely opportunistic feeders, preying upon arthropod and annelid species that occur in burrow systems, as well as aquatic invertebrates found within seasonal pools. The larvae feed on aquatic invertebrates and insects, showing a distinct preference for larvae of the Pacific tree frog. On August 4, 2004, the USFWS announced the listing of the CTS as threatened throughout its range with the exception of the Sonoma and Santa Barbara County populations which are listed 34 741 as endangered (USFWS 2004). On March 3, 2010, the California Fish and Game Commission designated CTS as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. On August 23, 2005, the Service designated 199,109 acres of critical habitat in 19 counties for the central California population of the CTS. On August 2, 2005, they proposed 74,223 acres of critical habitat for CTS in Sonoma County, California. This habitat is located in the Santa Rosa Plain in central Sonoma and includes lands bordered on the west by Laguna de Santa Rosa, to the south by Skillman Road, northwest of Petaluma, to the east by foothills, and to the north by Windsor Creek. On December 14, 2005, in a final decision, USFWS designated and excluded 17,418 acres of critical habitat for CTS, so that no critical habitat is being designated for the Sonoma County population. The CNDDB has listed 58 occurrences of CTS occurring within five miles of the Property. The location of the closest occurrence (Occurrence #893) from 2003, intersects with the Property. The most recent occurrence (Occurrence #1262) from 2021 is located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the Property. The closest USFWS designated critical habitat for CTS (Unit cv_18) is approximately 2 miles northeast of the Property (Attachment 1, Figure 7). The Property offers suitable breeding and upland refuge habitat within the seasonal pond and the small mammal burrows. CTS were found on the Property within the seasonal pond on the Anderson Parcel during protocol -level surveys conducted for special -status branchiopods in early 2022. CTS are known to occur on the Property in a breeding and dispersal capacity. REPTILES Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis eurvxanthus). Federally Threatened, State Threatened. The Alameda whipsnake is one of two subspecies of the California whipsnake. It is distinguished from the chaparral whipsnake (M. 1. lateralis) by the broad orange striping on its sides. Adults reach approximately three to five feet in length and show a sooty black to dark brown back, cream colored undersides and pinkish tail. This species is typically found in chaparral, northern coastal sage scrub, and coastal sage habitats; however annual grasslands, oak woodlands, and oak savannah serve as habitat during the breeding season. Egg -laying occurs near scrub habitat on ungrazed grasslands with scattered shrub cover. The known distribution for Alameda whipsnake includes Sobrante Ridge, Oakland Hills, Mount Diablo, the Black Hills, and Wauhab Ridge. Male and female snakes are active from April to November finding mates. During the breeding season from late March through mid -June, male snakes exhibit more movement throughout their home range, while female snakes remain sedentary from March until egg laying. Females lay a clutch of 6 to 11 eggs, usually in loose soil or under logs or rocks. 35 742 The CNDDB lists one occurrence of Alameda whipsnake within five miles of the Property. The location of this occurrence (Occurrence #39; 1991) is approximately 4.9 miles southwest of the Property. The closest USFWS designated critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake (Unit 3) is approximately 4.7 miles southwest of the Property. This occurrence lies just outside of the formal boundary of designated critical habitat. Due to the lack of rocky outcropping, no recent CNDDB occurrences (within 20 years), and the Property being surrounded by development on all three sides creating a dispersal barrier, Alameda whipsnake has a low potential to occur on the Property and is presumed absent. Western Pond Turtle (Emus marmorata). California Species of Special Concern. The western pond turtle is a thoroughly aquatic turtle that may be found in marshes, ponds, streams and irrigation ditches where aquatic vegetation is present. The turtles, which range from nine to ten inches in size, require basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg laying. Suitable breeding upland habitats may consist of sandy banks or grassy open fields. The western pond turtle has a dark brown to olive -colored carapace with hexagonal scales that lack prominent markings. Nesting and incubation occur from April to September, with a peak time for mating and egg laying occurring from March to May. After a 73 to 80-day gestation or incubation period, 5 to 13 eggs will be laid from July to October. Eggs are produced either once or twice a year. Females may travel some distance from water for egg -laying, moving as much as 0.8 kilometers (a hale mile) away from and up to 90 meters (300 feet) above the nearest source of water. Most nests are with 90 meters (300 feet) of water. The female usually leaves the water in the evening and may wander far before selecting a nest site, often in an open area of sand or hardpan that is facing southwards. The nest is flask -shaped with an opening of about five centimeters (two inches). Females spend considerable time covering up the nest with soil and adjacent low vegetation, making it difficult for a person to find unless it has been disturbed by a predator. Activity slows from November to February. During the winter when water and air temperatures cool, usually from September to March, the turtles begin to hibernate. During hibernation, turtles either bury themselves in the mud at the bottom of ponds or will bury themselves on land in duff (top layer of decomposing vegetation and soil). Some turtles travel more than a half mile to over - winter on land, though many select the nearest wooded or shrubby area they can bury in. Turtles then emerge from hibernation in the spring to start the yearly cycle again. CNDDB has listed 11 occurrences of western pond turtle within five miles of the Property. The closest CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #1251) is located 0.75 miles east of the Property just north of Highway 580 within a pond. The permanent water located within the intermittent 36 743 drainage in the northwest corner of the Property offers suitable habitat for WPT. Therefore, WPT has a moderate potential to occur on the Property. INVERTEBRATES Special Status Branchiopods (Branchinecta spp.) Federally Threatened or Endangered The federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi2 is approximately three quarters of an inch in length. This species inhabits seasonal wetlands such as alkaline pools, intermittent drainages, drainage ditches, oxbows, stockponds, and vernal pools and swales. Like the longhorn fairy shrimp, eggs become encysted during dry periods and hatch when seasonal wetlands refill. Threats to the vernal pool fairy shrimp include loss of habitat, agriculture, foot traffic, and off -road vehicles. The federally endangered longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna) is a small aquatic crustacean is 0.5 to 0.8 inches in length and has an elongated boy, large compound eyes on stalks, and eleven pairs of swimming legs. They can be found in clear to turbid vernal pools feeding on algae, bacteria, and detritus. Eggs are laid in vernal pools and become encysted during the dry season, hatching when the pools refill. The longhorn fairy shrimp is found in isolated locations from Contra Costa County to San Luis Obispo County. CNDDB lists one occurrence of vernal pool fairy shrimp and one occurrence of longhorn fairy shrimp within five miles of the Property. The location of the vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrence (Occurrence #99; 2000) is located 4.2 miles northeast of the Property within an alkali sink. The location of the longhorn fairy shrimp occurrence (Occurrence #24; 2018), is located 4.8 miles east of the Property. The closest USFWS critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Unit C) is approximately 4.2 miles east of the Property in unincorporated Alameda County. There is suitable habitat onsite for these species; however, wet season protocol surveys conducted in 2018 and 2022 and dry season protocol surveys conducted in 2022 discovered only the versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) to be present. No special status shrimp were observed during these surveys. Given this information the vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp are presumed absent from the site. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Wetlands Results of the biological resource analysis survey conducted by Olberding Environmental indicate that the Property contains wetlands/waters that are considered jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB and CDFW. A jurisdictional delineation has been prepared and 37 744 verified by the Corps, however changes to the surrounding hydrology indicates that site conditions may change which would warrant additional fieldwork with a reverification from the Corps. 7.2 Special -status Plants Results of the biological resource analysis and rare plant surveys conducted by Olberding Environmental indicate that the Property has three special -status plant species occurring on the Property: San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's tarplant, and saline clover. Additional species such as the Large flowered-fiddleneck, alkali milk vetch, heartscale, brittlescale, lesser saltscale, big tarplant, round -leaved filaree, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, hairless popcorn flower and long - styled sand spurrey were surveyed for on the Property at the appropriate blooming period. These nine plants were found to be absent from the Property. A rare plant survey report has been prepared as a separate document. No additional surveys are warranted. 7.3 Special -status Wildlife Foraging or Nesting Raptor/Passerine Species — A total of 17 bird species were identified as having potential to occur on the Property. Three species - red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and Cooper's hawk - were all observed during the August 2022 survey and potentially utilize the Property in a foraging and/or nesting capacity. A red-tailed hawk has utilized the eucalyptus trees on the Anderson Parcel in a nesting capacity during previous years. Nine bird species including the tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, great - horned owl, white-tailed kite, western screech owl, red -shouldered hawk and barn owl were all identified to have a high potential to occur on the site in a nesting and foraging capacity. The northern harrier and California horned lark were identified as having a moderate potential to be present on the Property, while the sharp -shinned hawk, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and the American peregrine falcon have a potential to occur on the Property in a foraging capacity only Special -Status Mammals — Given the presence of suitable onsite habitat; the pallid bat and Yuma myotis have a moderate potential to occur on the Property in a foraging and roosting capacity. The Townsend's big -eared bat has a low potential to occur on the Property due to the nearby human disturbance. No immediate signs were present during the initial survey, but the riparian trees and the large eucalyptus and oak trees could provide roosting habitat while the wetlands and drainages could provide foraging opportunities. The Property was surveyed signs of American badger and the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox, but none were observed. With the lack of recent CNDDB occurrences (within 20 years) and substantial burrows San 38 745 Joaquin kit fox is presumed absent from the Property. Due to the lack of burrows and visual evidence American badger is also presumed absent from the Property. Special -Status Amphibians — Two amphibian species, CRLF and CTS, have been observed on the Property during various surveys. Both species have many CNDDB occurrences within five miles including a large population of CRLF just north of the Property within the Jordan Ranch ponds and drainage channel. USFWS designated critical habitat for CRLF intersects with the northern half of the Property and the CTS critical habitat is located 2 miles northeast of the Property. CRLF have been observed within the Property and just adjacent to the Property within the ditch along Croak Road. The quarry pond provides suitable breeding habitat for CTS and were found present on the Property in March 2022. The Property contains suitable habitat for breeding and dispersal in the seasonal wetlands and drainages for CRLF and the multiple ground squirrel burrow complexes provide both species with suitable upland refuge. CRLF and CTS are present on -site and are likely to continue to utilize the site in a breeding, foraging and dispersal capacity. Special -Status Reptiles — The Alameda whipsnake was identified by the CNDDB as occurring within five miles of the Property; however, after an assessment of the Property, it was concluded that the site does not provide habitat to support Alameda whipsnake. Due to the distance of the CNDDB occurrence and the abundance of dispersal barriers, Alameda whipsnake is presumed absent. The CNDDB listed western pond turtle as occurring within five miles of the Property. Given the intermittent drainage located within the northwest corner of the Property, and the closest CNDDB occurrence within one mile of the Property, western pond turtle has a potential to occur on the Property. Special Status Invertebrates — The vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp were identified by the CNDDB as occurring within five miles of the Property; suitable habitat in the form of seasonal wetlands/ponds occur within the Property, however, after wet and dry season protocol surveys were conducted in 2018 and 2022 with negatives findings these species are presumed absent. A listed branchiopod survey report has been prepared as a separate document. No additional surveys are warranted. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS • Corps and State Regulated Wetlands/Waters — Jurisdictional wetlands and waters regulated under the authority of the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW are present on the Property. Fill of these regulated features may require authorization under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and authorization under Section 1600 of the Fish and Wildlife Code. An updated Corps wetland delineation should be prepared to 39 746 document if any changes to the extent of jurisdictional features has occurred. This should take place prior to any construction activity that could result in impacts to wetlands/waters. If the wetlands/waters are deemed jurisdictional and construction activities are proposed that could impact these features, permits must be obtained prior to construction. Setbacks from the wetlands/water features may be required to protect habitat quality and to protect water quality. Permitting to allow impacts to wetlands/waters features will require mitigation. • Pre -Construction Avian Survey — If project construction -related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for all nesting birds (including waterfowl, passerines, raptors, and other birds) within and adjacent to (within 1,000 feet) the Property should be conducted by a competent biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. Surveys should focus on areas where birds are likely to nest, including trees, shrubs, grasslands, rock faces, stream banks, or under eves of structures. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of influence, an adequate protective buffer zone should be established by a qualified biologist to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for small passerine birds, and a minimum of 250 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a competent biologist based on the site conditions (topography, if the nest is in a line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a competent biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s). Active nests, including those in the process of being constructed shall not be disturbed. Surveys shall be repeated in areas where Project activities lapse for a period of 7 days or more. • Burrowing Owl Surveys — A burrowing owl pre -construction survey should take place before any construction activities commence. Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl or its sign at or near a burrow entrance is observed within the last three years. If a burrowing owl or sign is present on the Property three additional protocol level surveys will be initiated. Once these surveys have been completed to identify the owl's location, disturbance buffers should be placed around each active burrow. No disturbance should occur within 200 meters of occupied burrows during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) and/or within 50 meters of occupied burrows during non -breeding season (September 1 through January 31). Pre -construction surveys shall be completed 14 days prior to initiating activities. 40 747 • Special -status Bats Surveys — For all Project activities planned in or adjacent to potential bat roosting habitat, such as structures and/or involving woody vegetation modification or removal of any and all trees, a qualified biologist shall conduct daytime and evening acoustic surveys in addition to extensive visual surveys of potential habitat for special -status bats at least 7 days prior to initiation of Project activities. If bats are found on -site, a qualified biologist shall identify the species, estimated quantity present, roost type, and roost status, but shall avoid disturbing bats during surveys. A qualified biologist shall also create a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan if special -status bat species are detected prior to the start of Project activities. The Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include: (1) an assessment of all Project impacts to special -status bats, including noise disturbance during construction; (2) effective avoidance and minimization measures to protect special -status bats; (3) and compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to special -status bats or their nesting/roosting habitat. If structures, trees, or other refugia equivalents are slated for limbing, removal, or modification, the Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the following measures: • To ensure that special -status bats have left potential roosting refugia, work shall occur over the course of two days. On the first day, smaller limbs or items from the identified trees or structures shall be brushed back or modified in the late afternoon. This disturbance should cause any potential roosting bats to seek other roosts during their nighttime foraging. The remainder of the refugia item can then be further limbed or removed as needed on the second day as late in the afternoon as feasible. If bats are found injured, or if bat mortality occurs during the course of tree work, a qualified biologist shall record the species impacted, and the number of individuals documented. • Tree limbing, modification, removal, or work on structural refugia shall not be performed under any of the following conditions: during any precipitation events, when ambient temperatures are below 4.5 degrees Celsius, when windspeeds exceed 11 miles per hour, and/or any other condition which may lead to bats seeking refuge. • If special -status bats are found utilizing a tree, structure, or equivalent for roosting, the Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include permanent artificial roosting habitat installations that shall be adjacent to, and sufficient for, the species observed and associated ecology thereof. Effective buffer zones for the installation and monitoring of the artificial roosts shall be determined and established by a qualified biologist. 41 748 • Pre -construction CRLF Protocol Survey - A qualified biologist shall survey the project site for CRLF (and other sensitive wildlife species) preceding the commencement of construction activities to verify location of the species. Surveys should be perform using USFWS protocol. • Surveys Performed durinji the breedinji season (October 1- June 30): USFWS recommends a total of up to eight surveys to determine the absence of CRLF at or a near a project site. Two day surveys and four night surveys would be required during the breeding season. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. • Surveys Performed during the non -breeding season (July 1- September 30) One day and one night survey would be required during the non -breeding season. At least one survey must be completed between January 1 and August 15. If CRLF are identified at any time during the course of surveys, no additional surveys are needed. The main purpose of day surveys during breeding season are to look for larvae, metamorphs and egg masses while the purpose for day surveys during non -breeding season are to look for metamorphosing sub -adults and non -breeding adults. Day surveys should be conducted between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. Night surveys are used to identify and locate adult and metamorphosed frogs and are to take place no earlier than one hour after sunset. • Pre -construction Amphibian Surveys — Directed pre -construction surveys for CTS and CRLF are recommended prior to construction activities. A qualified biologist shall survey the project site for CRLF and CTS preceding the commencement of construction activities to verify the location of the species. All ruts, holes, and burrows shall be inspected for CTS and CRLF prior to and during excavation or removal. The biological monitor shall precede initial grading equipment to look for and avoid amphibians that may be present on the Property. If any amphibians are found during initial grubbing a qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or Service approved under an active biological opinion, will be contracted to trap and to move amphibians to nearby suitable habitat outside the fenced Project site. A special -status amphibian Mortality Reduction and Relocation Plan may be required prior to commencement of project activities. • Pre -construction Upland CTS Survey — An upland survey for CTS should be conducted preceding the commencement of construction activities. Survey protocols 42 749 include the installation drift fences, pitfall traps, or coverboards in order to protect existing CTS on the Property. Additional protection measures such as environmental training of construction crews and biological monitoring will take place to reduce take of the species. If any amphibians are found during initial grubbing a qualified biologist possessing a valid ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit or Service approved under an active biological opinion, will be contracted to trap and to move amphibians to nearby suitable habitat outside the fenced Project site. A special -status amphibian Mortality Reduction and Relocation Plan may be required prior to commencement of project activities. • Erosion Control — Grading and excavation activities could expose soil to increased rates of erosion during construction periods. During construction, runoff from the Property could adversely affect aquatic life within the adjacent water features. Surface water runoff could remove particles of fill or excavated soil from the site, or could erode soil down -gradient, if the flow were not controlled. Deposition of eroded material in adjacent water features could increase turbidity, thereby endangering aquatic life, and reducing wildlife habitat. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to aquatic organisms would be avoided or minimized. Mitigation measures may include best management practices (BMP's) such as hay bales, silt fencing, placement of straw mulch and hydro seeding of exposed soils after construction as identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). • City Ordinance Adherence — If any heritage trees are to be removed from the Property, a permit from the Director must be obtained. According the City of Dublin, a Heritage tree is considered as, any oak, bay cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore having a trunk or main stem of 24 inches or more in diameter measured at four feet six inches above natural grade, a tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plant, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map, as well as a tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. Tree removal requested as part of the development of a property subject to zoning, subdivision, conditional use permit, or site development review application approval shall be reviewed and approved by the body having final authority over the entitlement application. Ord. 5-02 § 2 (part): Ord. 29-99 § 1 (part) 43 750 9.0 LITERATURE CITED California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. State and federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare plants of California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler. ashx?DocumentlD=109390&inline . 2022b. Special animals. http s : //nrm. dfg. ca. gov/FileHandler. ashx?Do cumentlD=109406&inline California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2022. Computer listings and map locations of historic and current recorded occurrences of special -status species and natural communities of special concern for USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs. Accessed on September 1, 2022. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org Accessed September 1, 2022. CEQA. 2022. The California Environmental Quality Act. Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Accessed on September 2, 2022. Available online at https://www.califaep.org/statute and guidelines.php Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York. 785 pp. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 2012. 1400 pp. Holland (1986) Preliminary Description of the Natural Communities of California. CDFW. Mayer, K. E. and Laudenslayer W.F. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed September 1, 2022. Available on-line at http ://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Pierce, Robert J. 1995. Wetland Delineation Lecture Notes. Wetland Training Institute, Inc., Poolesville, MD. WTI 95-2. 200pp. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. 2nd Ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 44 751 Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1 (5th edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 338 pp. Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred Knopf, New York. Sibley, C.G., and B.L. Munroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 1111 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species. Accessed on September 2, 2022. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ . 2022b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant and animal taxa that are Candidates or Proposed for listing as Endangered or Threatened; annual notice of findings on recycled petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions; proposed rule. Accessed on September 2, 2022. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ . 2015. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Sacramento, California: USFWS Pacific Southwest Region. September 2, 2015. . 2007. Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and Conservation Measures. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Accessed on September 1, 2022. Available on-line at http: //www. fws. gov/northeast/ecologicalservice s/pdf/NationalB aldEagleManagementGui delines.pdf. . 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red -Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Assocaited with Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. Federal Register 71: 19244-19346. . 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Threatened Status for the California Tiger Salamander; and Special Rule Exemption for Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. Federal Register 69: 47212-47248. 45 752 ATTACHMENTS 753 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES Regional Map Vicinity Map USGS Quadrangle Map Aerial Photograph CNDDB Map of Special Status Wildlife CNDDB Map of Special Status Plants USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Soils Map Photo Location Map Habitat Map 754 Figure 1 Regional Map 755 Plea ant Hill e r aC W:Omit Cre 4i T r; -tt-- n p 1 a Casco tan a (, e, a yO Hd tpSt Hayward Ha —wary and Union City Newark Ch 0 2 f Clayton MI Diar,d,-, Slate Pai4 5ah Ramon yr Bnlliage c r ro a 4 v .ii lin Dublin Blvd 0' Hr,s,hrar,a Rry aDs' shin d i Valley Vinoy eaianton y"Av ties CanMoft Rd 8 Miles Scale: 1:250,000 1 in = 4 miles Print at 8.5" x 11" t 6 V si1 ��cd° �ry away N Sun!el kJ n T �. Brentwood i Balfour Rd • a o IP4 .4/nod Blvd t 0 Ea:tAve Livermore > n 1 r• Byron QS � r DiscC. on Pse S Ry Y ip. Graanviiie Rd Concannon 9W6 Tesla Rd P attffra or, Pass Survey Location Document Path: C:\Project Work\Dublin Fallon East\GIS\mxd\DublinFallonEast_Figurel_RegionalMap.mxd OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 1: Regional Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONttENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 756 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 757 -00 pa d 1n r. a° c j A S P C�i hliri fn ra i5.-11 ..iii- U . 17 II, tl 3. O 6 1 % cc / C k4 a , e.of :y � fit'. - p+ sn DSS E rW p 4Blnit in - Falapell Poly °iviuf. occi A�rorry WaY m QuOla Rane. s Q`aextdale aanta`" }aaddvn WAY rS ohrl on Way v �fli Rid pctleld JBradlc'Nay Vlll orli L0ra9 ra„, rn pLhlllr 81vd _ ❑u unn R rm I. C,urw. Aran Way prams n Hlr kcal dy St y Fmrl an CIS Dr m aceq yy5` E it Cur. w _ - E r%¢ Dnthr le St sire 211.1a0 Ballantvna A4edo. e [7 Csk Park P1 f4I W La, PosItas Blvd �µ st aat6*v a IXMonl SScneridge Dr Snowdrop, ; - N Cho y'aNO` Amery O nnfa Dr t. y Pak 0 Falun Skona Park card Rya M" von Way e Wll de4 Tronery Dr CIr rbel Hn+ el $ kip Park .S Am4%4 d'. p y NCO R q ^n1' r a '._7 C o u e N o Auanlf q� orin4 a. G O riaV 9erty Dr , s�tanO pmsq � 40 2 9' ▪ dnlara�� SSA -a oD 0 ,4 1, y* La vinaSr m y valley yr:u Dr Vln! a� on A`e ` D+ A very ys» 4 P V a VI � as y� Central Pk pry Son Fra Pa, un.rr ohm -. Fr Charro Rd e 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale: 1:24,000 1 in = 2,000 feet Print at 8.5" x 11" WWQ Rd WJaCk.London Blvd CI Clrfh NW9e Dr g4nlnel Survey Area Document Path: C:\Protect Work\Dublin Fallon East\GIS\mxd\DublinFallonEast Fipure2 VicinityMap.mxd OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 2: Vicinity Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONhtENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 758 Figure 3 USGS Quadrangle Map 759 • L, REFD FWY PIMt HCOd tiP� pN NISr. 2 e z HALLaN Livermore 7.5" USGS Quad 37.7050000,-121.8450000 T3S, R1E, S2 & S3 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale: 1:24,000 1 in = 2,000 feet Print at 8.5" x 11" J CPtL+F:+ CANYON RI-J ARTHUR H BREED FWY M. Survey Area Document Path: C:\Protect Work\Dublin Fallon East\GIS\mxd\DublinFallonEast Fiqure3 TopoMap.mxd OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONhtENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 760 Figure 4 Aerial Photograph 761 OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Document Path: C:\P o'ect Work\D blin Fa10 East \GI€\dlxd\DublinFallonEast Fi.ure4- AerialMap.mxd Figure 4: Aerial Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONMENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 762 Figure 5 CNDDB Map of Special Status Wildlife 763 e 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles Scale: 1:95,040 1 in = 1.5 miles Print at 8.5" x 11" A QSurvey Area 11.1 5 Mile Buffer of Survey Area CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Alameda whipsnake ® American badger 3 American peregrine falcon California horned lark ® California red -legged frog California tiger salamander - central California DPS QSan Joaquin kit fox OTownsend's big -eared bat Oburrowing owl ferruginous hawk golden eagle longhom fairy shrimp ® northern harrier pallid bat 11 prairie falcon //j tricolored blackbird Overnal pool fairy shrimp Owestern pond turtle l__—i white-tailed kite OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 5: CNDDB Wildlife Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONhtENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 764 Figure 6 CNDDB Map of Special Status Plants 765 e 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles Scale: 1:95,040 1 in = 1.5 miles Print at 8.5" x 11" _ J Survey Area 5 Mile Buffer of Survey Area CNDDB Plant Occurrences lICongdon's tarplant Diablo helianthella ® Mt. Diablo buckwheat San Joaquin spearscale brittlescale caper -fruited tropidocarpum ® hairless popcornflower heartscale hispid salty bird's -beak lesser saltscale long -styled sand-spurrey Opalmate-bracted bird's -beak ® prostrate vernal pool navarretia Osaline clover OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 6: CNDDB Plants Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONhtENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 766 Figure 7 USFWS Designated Critical Habitat 767 e 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles Scale: 1:7,920 1 in = 1.5 miles Print at 8.5" x 11" i 1 Survey Area • - - 5 Mile Buffer of Survey Area Alameda Whipsnake Final Critical Habitat I Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Final Critical Habitat I California Red -legged Frog Final Critical Habitat California Tiger Salamander Final Critical Habitat OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 7: Critical Habitat Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONMENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 768 Figure 8 Soils Map 769 e 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Scale: 1:6,000 1 in = 500 feet Print at 8.5" x 11" 'smarm Survey Area SSURGO Soil Type Cc - Clear Lake clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes, MLRA 14 DvC - Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes LaC - Linne clay loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes LaD - Linne clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, MLRA 15 LaE2 - Linne clay loam, 30 to 45 percent slopes, eroded RdA - Rincon clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes RdB - Rincon clay loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 1 OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 8: Soils Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONMENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 770 Figure 9 Photo Location Map 771 e 0 250 500 Scale: 1:6,000 1 inch = 500 feet Print at: 8.5" x 11" Feet 1,000 Property Boundary a Photo Points 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 OLBERD1NG -ENVIRONMENTAL- Figure 9: Photo Points Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, CA 772 Figure 10 Habitat Map 773 O N- CO CO LC) L 0 To E 0 0 u_ 193 Blue Ravine Rd. Ste. co oo 7 co 0) 0, ai 0 a Revision Date: 10/18/2022 jz .; z DW 774 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLES 775 Table 1 Plant and Wildlife Species Observed Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area 776 Table 1 Plant and Wildlife Species Observed Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area Scientific Name Common Name Plant Species Observed Anemopsis californica Yerba mansa Avena fatua Wild oat Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Bellardia trixago Mediterranean linseed Brassica nigra Black mustard Bromus diandrus Rip -gut brome Bromus hordeaceous Soft chess Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star thistle Centromadia parryi ssp. condonii Congdon's tarplant Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Cotula coronopifolia Brass buttons Cupressus sempervirens Italian cypress Cynara cardunculus Artichoke thistle Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Distichilis spicata Salt grass Erodium botrys Broadleaf filaree Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus tree Extriplex joaquiniana San Joaquin spearscale Festuca perennis Italian rye grass Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue Hordeum murinum Hare barley Lythrym hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Medicago polymorpha California bur clover Nerium oleander Oleander Phleum alpinum Timothy grass Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbit's foot grass Poplus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Rumex cripsus Curly dock Salix sp. Willow tree Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree Trifolium hydrophilum Saline clover Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail 777 Table 1 Plant and Wildlife Species Observed Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area Scientific Name Common Name Wildlife Species Observed Birds Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk Agelaius phoeniceus Red -winged blackbird Aphelocoma californica Western scrub jay Bubo virginianus Great horned owl Buteo jamaicenesis Red-tailed hawk Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Carpdacus mexicanus House finch Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax Common raven Falco sparverius American kestrel Melozone crissalis California towhee Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Pipilo crissalis California towhee Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe Sayornis saya Say's phoebe Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark Turdus migratorius American robin Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophyrs White -crowned sparrow Mammals Lepus californicus Black tailed jack rabbit Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail Thomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher Canis latrans Coyote Reptiles Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard Amphibians Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Rana draytonii California red -legged frog 778 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs, and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps 779 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** PLANTS Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Present Potential on Site Survey conducted during blooming period No suitable habitat present No suitable habitat present Survey conducted during blooming period Survey conducted during blooming period Survey conducted during blooming period Present IHabitats of Occurrence Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, annual grassland in various soils. Broadleafed upland forest; lower montane coniferous forest; North Coast coniferous forest/damp rock and soil on outcrops, usually on roadcuts. Chaparral, rocky slopes. Playas, valley and foothill grasslands in adobe clay soils, and vernal pools in alkaline soils. Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland on alkaline flats and scalds, sandy soils. Chenopod scrub, meadows and sinks, playas, valley and foothill grasslands, and alkaline vernal pools with clay substrate. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland in alkaline soils. r � Blooming or Survey Period April — May z January — February March — June April — October May — October April — October Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 cci W W N r� rii w Common Name/Scientific Name Large -Flowered Fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) Slender Silver -Moss (Anomobryum julaceum) Contra Costa Manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. laevigata ) Alkali Milk -Vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener) Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata) Brittlescale (Atriplex depressa) San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) 780 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Presumed absent Not likely to occur Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Present Potential on Site Survey conducted during blooming period Low Annual grassland may provide marginally suitable habitat Survey conducted during blooming period Survey conducted during blooming period No suitable habitat present No suitable habitat present Present Habitats of Occurrence Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley grassland and alkaline sinks. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothills grasslands, sometimes in serpentinite outcrops. Valley and foothill grassland, dry hills and plains in annual grassland, clay to clay -loam soils; usually on slopes and often in burned areas. Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, clay soils. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland; on wooded and brushy slopes. Chaparral, in rocky, usually serpentine soils. Valley and foothill grasslands in alkaline soils. r � Blooming or Survey Period May — October March — June July — October i March — May J May — June June — November Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 CC) CC 221 22 221 CC W Common Name/Scientific Name Lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula) Big -Scale Balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis) Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumose) Round -Leaved Filaree (California macrophylla) Mount Diablo Fairy -Lantern (Calochortus pulchellus) Chaparral Harebell (Campanula exigua) Congdon's Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. condonii) 781 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Not likely to occur Not likely to occur Not likely to occur Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Potential on Site Low Marginally suitable habitat present Low Marginally suitable habitat present Low Marginally suitable habitat present No suitable habitat or soil substrates present Low No suitable habitat present Survey conducted during blooming period No suitable habitat present Habitats of Occurrence Alkaline soils on meadows and seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grassland Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland; usually on Pescadero silty clay which is alkaline, with Distichlis, Frankenia, etc. Chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands in sandy soils. Chaparral and coastal scrub, some populations on serpentine soil. c, 0 0 P. E a) Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, alkaline soils in grassland, or in mesic vernal pools, meadows and seeps. Chaparral, cismontane woodland; adjacent to trails, on rock outcrops and talus slopes; sometimes on serpentine. r � Blooming or Survey Period June — September T z April — November May — September a) 0 ti ! a) 0 ti 4. a d April — May Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 ril W W Cq ? Pa ? ? = 0. ? Common Name/Scientific Name Hispid bird's beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidus) Palmate-Bracted Bird's -Beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) Mount Diablo Buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum) Hall's Bush -Mallow (Malacothamnus hallii) Legenere (Legenere limosa) Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) Mount Diablo Phacelia (Phacelia phacelioides) 782 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Presumed extinct Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Presumed absent Present Presumed absent Potential on Site While suitable freshwater wetland habitat is present, plant is presumed extinct in California No suitable habitat present Survey conducted during blooming period No suitable soil substrates present No suitable talus or rock outcroppings present Present No suitable habitat present Habitats of Occurrence Meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, coastal salt marshes and alkaline meadows. Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, drying alkaline flats, chaparral. Alkaline meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands in serpentine soils on ridges and slopes. Valley and foothill grassland, chaparral; talus or rocky outcrops. Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grasslands with mesic, alkaline soils, and vernal pools. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub; moss growing on soil. r � Blooming or Survey Period March — May January — April February — May I) ti March — June ti P., d z Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 N ac1 rii r� COa� Common Name/Scientific Name Hairless Popcorn -Flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) Chaparral Ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) Long -Styled Sand Spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca longistyla) Most Beautiful Jewel -Flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus) Mount Diablo Jewel -Flower (Streptanthus hispidus) Saline Clover (Trifolium depauperatum var. hydrophilum) Coastal Triquetrella (Moss) (Triquetrella californica) 783 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Not likely to occur INVERTEBRATES Presumed absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent BIRDS Potential on Site Low Marginally suitable habitat present Species not detected during protocol -level surveys in 2018 and 2022. Species not detected during protocol -level surveys in 2018 and 2022. Species not detected during protocol -level surveys in 2018 and 2022. Habitats of Occurrence Valley and foothill grasslands on alkaline hills. Endemic to central valley vernal pools and swales. Endemic to the eastern margin of the central coast mountains in seasonally astatic grassland vernal pools, inhabit small, clear -water depressions in sandstone and clear -to -turbid clay/grass-bottomed pools in shallow swales. Vernal pools and seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands r � Blooming or Survey Period March — April Resident Resident Resident Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 H W o U O Common Name/Scientific Name Caper -Fruited Tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum) Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) Longhorn Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna) California Linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis) 784 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Present May occur In a foraging capacity only as a winter migrant May Occur May Occur In a foraging capacity only May Occur May Occur Present Potential on Site High Suitable habitat resent Low Suitable foraging habitat present High Suitable habitat present High Suitable foraging habitat present High Suitable habitat present High Suitable habitat present High Suitable habitat present Habitats of Occurrence Oak woodlands, coniferous forests, riparian corridors. Often hunts on edges between habitats. Oak woodlands, coniferous forests, riparian corridors. Often hunts on edges between habitats. Nesting within seasonal wetland marshes, blackberry brambles or other protected substrates. Forages in annual grassland and wetland habitats. Nests in cliff -walled canyons and tall trees in open areas. (Nesting and wintering) Rolling foothills mountain areas, sage juniper flats, and desert. Dry open annual or perennial grassland, desert and scrubland. Uses abandoned mammal burrows for nesting. Take over nests of large birds in trees that include deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, tropical rainforests, prairie, mountainous areas, rocky coasts, mangrove swamps, and some urban areas. Also, in cavities of trees, cliffs, deserted buildings, and artificial platforms. Various grassland habitats, urban land, oak woodlands with grassland for foraging. r � Blooming or Survey Period February — August February — August February — August February — August U J February — August February — August Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 r\ Tv\ V 0 c FP/CP/- SOC/-/SC r�l Common Name/Scientific Name Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Sharp -Shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 785 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Present May occur In a foraging capacity only as a winter migrant Presumed absent May Occur May occur May occur Potential on Site High Suitable habitat present. Present during a 2022 protocol shrimp survey. Low Suitable foraging habitat present Low No suitable habitat present Moderate Suitable habitat present High Suitable habitat present High Suitable habitat present Habitats of Occurrence Forages in variety of semi -developed habitats including orchards. Forages in woodlands and riparian areas. Nests in riparian habitat but also eucalyptus groves. Open country such as semiarid grasslands with few trees, rocky outcrops, and open valleys. Also, along streams or in agricultural areas during migration. Nests in riparian areas and in oak savannah near foragin areas. Forages in alfalfa and grain fields with roden populations. Nests in grasslands and marshlands, ground nesting bird. Various grassland habitats, urban land, oak woodlands with grassland for foraging. Short -grass prairie, bald hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats. Prefer open terrain where they construct nests on the ground, often in sparsely vegetated areas. r � Blooming or Survey Period February — August Late Fall — Winter February — October February — August February — August February — August Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 U J SOC/CP/FP C/] Common Name/Scientific Name Red -shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) 786 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Not likely to occur May occur In a foraging capacity only May occur In a foraging capacity only Present May Occur Presumed absent Potential on Site Low Marginally suitable habitat present Low Marginally suitable foraging habitat present Moderate Suitable foraging habitat present. High Suitable habitat present High Suitable habitat present Low No suitable habitat present Habitats of Occurrence Seacoast, tidal estuaries, open woodlands, savannahs, edges of grasslands and deserts, farms and ranches, near water. Clumps of trees or windbreaks are required for roosting in open country. Nests on cliffs in dry open terrain either in level or hilly habitats. Forages in scrub, grassland, desert or agricultural fields. Nests near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water. On cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds, and human -made structures. Various grassland habitats, urban land, oak woodlands with grassland for foraging. Open grassland habitats, grazed grasslands. Uses shrubs for nesting. In summer, inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near water. Nests in willow, blackberry, and wild grape. r � Blooming or Survey Period September — May February — August February - August February — August February — August February — August Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 a U w U P. a U U `n U 0 0 U cip Common Name/Scientific Name Merlin (Falco columbarius) Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Yellow -Breasted Chat (Icteria virens) 787 * rM C czt Potential on Cin Habitats of Occurrence 0 5 aCi U 0 xc • cct cct ect .D O O ' N � N 1 65 bq February -August O U O 0) z 0— 0) CACAO CA cA 0 0 0 C . -0 0 0 (A,^_, b4 o.�o 0U 0 0 C --' 3 . U 3 0 0 - 0 c etb u , 0 0 .b00 b4 yy H I�y I. W . z U v (Antrozous pallidus) 788 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** Presumed Absent U U O cd Presumed Absent Presumed absent Presumed Absent Potential on Site No suitable habitat present Moderate Suitable habitat present No suitable habitat present Low Potentially suitable grassland habitat present Low No suitable habitat present. No recent CNDDB occurrences Habitats of Occurrence Open grassy hilltops and open spaces in chaparral and blue oak/digger pine woodlands; needs fine, deep, well - drained soil for burrowing. Roosts primarily in caves, rocks and crevices, but also found in artificial structures. Opportunistic hunters with a wide range of insect prey. Hunts for insects above the surface of slow -moving water or in vegetation close to the water's edge. Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dens understory, may prefer chaparral and redwood habitats. Nests constructed of grass, leaves, sticks, feathers, etc. Population may be limited by availability of nes materials. Shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats with friable soils to dig burrows. Need open, uncultivated ground. Prey on fossorial mammals. Annual grasslands or grassy stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Needs loose soils for burrowing. r � Blooming or Survey Period Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 i CA U W. Common Name/Scientific Name Berkeley Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis) Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis) San Francisco Dusky -Footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) American Badger (Taxidea taxus) San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 789 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** AMPHIBIAN Q 6 a Presumed Absent Present Not likely to occur Potential on Site x PI 2 N N p O a Low No suitable habitat present High Suitable habitat present. Present during a 2022 survey. Low Suitable habitat present Habitats of Occurrence Vernal pools, swales and depressions for breeding, needs underground refugia. Partially shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Need cobble for egg - laying. Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian habitat. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for breeding and larval development. Must have access to aestivation habitat. Sandy or gravelly habitats in a variety of cismontane habitats, particularly vernal pools, grasslands, alkali flats, and playas. Breeds in rain pools, puddles, vernal pools, tire ruts, etc. r � Blooming or Survey Period Aquatic Surveys - Once each in March, April, and May with at least 10 days between surveys. Upland Surveys - 20 nights of surveying under proper conditions beginning October 15 and ending March 15. Year-round resident May 1 — November 1 Year-round resident Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 _ H C U O CA T/-/SC v, CA Common Name/Scientific Name California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Foothill Yellow -Legged Frog (Rana boylii) California Red -Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Western spadefoot (Spea hammondi) 790 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Livermore, Tassajara, Diablo, Dublin, Altamont, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mendenhall Springs and Byron Hot Springs 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site** REPTILE May occur Presumed absent Presumed Absent Potential on Site Moderate No suitable habitat present Low No suitable habitat present Low No suitable habitat present Habitats of Occurrence Aquatic turtle needs permanent water in ponds, streams, irrigation ditches. Nests on sandy banks or grassy fields. Valley foothill hardwood habitat of the coast ranges between Monterey and north San Francisco Bay areas. Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes; requires open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects. r � Blooming or Survey Period March — October Year-round resident Year-round resident Status (Fed/State/ CNPS)2 H H cn Common Name/Scientific Name Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) 791 CA IC CI C4 Cke Potential on Cise • Habitats of Occurrence eet z O Ei U eet rn U ct 4r 'O O b1J cct cct U 4- 0 a; U N o - r 0 O. a) o tri o 71,3 4- ai U 3 4- o ct as IC; Q O O'o� w �, o o� �a CA o.� A� -0 as z w o ct P4 w.°.= o w o C7 UtC1 a.) U 0 lc 0w2y.1) go UVU ) o CyO O �W� 3yUUC' ~U•a),y ��� C����o cacaa)i ,,,, maw c as c aa)i as oz m ‘, ,.,) ,%,-dw b - s�A � w a� q1 K5,"vDC moo w�d�g�;:' �� Zaaza U U a� a�� �A UU UZ To�dU .ww c4 �? .v U U .z oCUvo�wHUr4AUwQ-QNr,� ri0 — N 792 ATTACHMENT 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 793 1. Facing west, photo shows an overview of the abandoned quarry mine. Photo taken August 31, 2022. 2. Facing north, photo shows an overview of the abandoned quarry mine. Photo taken August 31, 2022. OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 794 3. Facing northeast, photo shows the wetland and riparian habitats located within the abandoned quarry mine. Fremont's cottonwood are the dominant trees seen in the center portion of the photograph. Photo taken February 2022. 4. Facing southeast, photo shows a stand of eucalyptus trees located on the eastern edge of the Property. Photo taken August 31, 2022. OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 795 5. Facing north, photo shows one of six seasonal wetland features filled with water after a rain event. Photo taken October 27, 2016. 6. Facing southwest, Photo shows one of five ephemeral drainages located on the Property. Photo taken October 27, 2016. OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 796 7. Facing northeast, photo shows the non-native annual grassland and the southern perimeter of the large southwest seasonal wetland. Photo taken January 10, 2022. 8. Facing southwest, photo shows an overview of the large emergent wetland located in the southerwestern corner of the Property. Photo taken August 31, 2022. OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 797 9. Facing south, photo shows the emergent wetland in the southwest corner with water present. Photo taken August 31, 2022. 10. Facing north, photo shows riparian woodland habitat that occurs along the northwestern portion of the Property. Photo taken October 27, 2016. OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 798 11. Photo shows a California red -legged frog individual that was found within a small depressional wallow created by cattle hoof shear along the western portion of the Property. Photo taken April 11, 2018. 12. Photo shows California tiger salamander larvae found within the seasonal pond located within the abandoned quarry. Photo taken February 9, 2022. OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 799 13. Photo shows San Joaquin spearscale found onsite. Photo taken April 12, 2022. 14. Photo shows Congdon's tarplant found adjacent to the southwest wetland. Photo taken June 28, 2022. OLBERDING •ENvutONMEN TA L. Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 800 15. Photo shows saline clover found on site within the emergent wetland. Photo taken April 12, 2022. 16. Photo shows three large-branchiopod individuals (Branchinecta lindahli) that were encountered during sampling within one of the wetland features. The two females are on the top of the photo and the male is the one on the bottom. Photo taken April 11, 2018. .2frk OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• Dublin Fallon East Property — 8/31/2022 801 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix D Special -Status Plant Survey Report 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 802 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SURVEY REPORT FOR THE DUBLIN FALLON EAST PROJECT CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GH PAC VEST, LLC 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 5115 Houston, TX 75056 Prepared by: OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 3170 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 260 San Ramon, CA 94583 Phone: (925) 866-2111 — FAX (925) 825-2112 Contact: Jeff Olberding October 2022 803 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES 2 4.0 PLANT REGULATIONS 2 4.1 Federal Regulatory Setting 2 4.2 State Regulatory Setting 3 5.0 FLORISTIC INVENTORY AND HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION 3 5.1 Annual Grassland 4 5.2 Riparian Woodland 4 5.3 Seasonal Wetland/Pond 4 5.4 Emergent Marsh 4 5.5 Drainage Channel 4 6.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 5 7.0 SURVEY RESULTS 6 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 8 9.0 REFERENCES 9 11 804 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLES Regional Map Vicinity Map USGS Quadrangle Map Aerial Photograph CNDDB Special -Status Plants Map Soils Map Special Status Plant Location Map Table 1 Special -Status Species Occurring in the Las Trampas, Diablo, Dublin, Hayward Quadrangle Map Table 2 Plant Species Observed ATTACHMENT 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS This report should be cited as: Olberding Environmental, Inc. September 2022. Special -Status Plant Survey Report for the Dublin Fallon East Project, City of Dublin, California. Prepared for GH America Investments, INC, Houston, Texas. 111 805 1.0 SUMMARY Olberding Environmental, Inc. has performed focused botanical surveys for special -status (those species identified as rare, threatened, or endangered) plants on the Dublin Fallon East Property [AKA Chen and Anderson Properties (Properties)], located within the city limits of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Multiple special -status plant species, identified as occurring within the vicinity of the Properties by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), were determined to have a potential to occur on the Properties based on the presence of appropriate habitat types. These plants include: San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquiniana), Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. condonii), saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum), large - flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), alkali milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata), lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round -leaved filaree (California macrophylla), hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber), long -styled sand spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca longistyla), and prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata). The following discussion provides a description of the Properties' plant communities, survey methods, and the results of surveys performed during the identified blooming period of the above listed species recognized as having the potential to occur on the Properties. Survey results include mapping of identified existing sensitive plant locations. Multiple surveys were conducted throughout 2017 and throughout 2022. Surveys conducted in 2017 occurred on March 28, April 18, June 1, and June 28. Surveys conducted in 2022 occurred on March 17, April 12, May 3, June 28 and September 1. 2.0 LOCATION AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Properties consist of approximately 135 acres and 50 acres respectively, located just east of the intersection of Fallon Road and Croak Road, north of Interstate-580, in Dublin, California. Attachment 1, Figure 1 depicts the regional location of the Properties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Attachment 1, Figure 2 illustrates the vicinity of the Properties in relationship to the City of Dublin. Attachment 1, Figure 3 identifies the locations of the Properties on a USGS Quadrangle base map. Attachment 1, Figure 4 shows an aerial of the Properties. Access to the Properties is provided from Interstate 580. From 580, take the El Charro/Fallon Road exit and make a left onto Fallon Road. Travel north for 0.5 miles then make a right onto Croak Road, the Chen Property will be found on the right. Continue on Croak Road for 0.2 miles, the Anderson Property will be on the right. 1 806 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES A majority of both Properties support California non-native annual grassland habitat. Plant species diversity is low, primarily due to grazing pressure. Dominant plant species include a mixture of annual grasses as well as forbs that are common to locally abundant at various times of the year. On the Anderson Property, an abandoned quarry pit in the north portion of the site supports a large, pond and seasonal wetland bordered by a small band of riparian woodland. Two small, seasonal wetlands are found in the southwestern portion of the Property. On the Chen Property, an intermittent drainage and small section of riparian woodland habitat occur in the northwestern corner of the Property. Four ephemeral drainages occur within the valleys among the steep grass covered hillsides. A series of wetland features were observed on the Property, with the largest wetland located along the western portion of the Property. Water exits a culvert just outside the boundary of the Property and discharges onto the Property creating an emergent marsh across the southwestern portion. Additional wetland features occur in the southeastern corner of the Property and in the northeastern corner at the top of one of the ephemeral drainages. 4.0 PLANT REGULATIONS 4.1 Federal Regulatory Setting The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq., as amended) prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would result in biological jeopardy to a plant or animal species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Act. Listed species are taxa for which proposed and final rules have been published in the Federal Register (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2006a and 2006b). If a proposed project may jeopardize listed species, Section 7 of the ESA requires consideration of those species through formal consultations with the USFWS. Federal Proposed species (USFWS, 2006c) are species for which a proposed listing as Threatened or Endangered under ESA has been published in the Federal Register. If a proposed project may jeopardize proposed species, Section 7 of the ESA affords consideration of those species through informal conferences with USFWS. The USFWS defines federal Candidate species as "those taxa for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded by other higher priority listing actions." (USFWS, 2007c). Federal Candidate species are not afforded formal protection, although USFWS encourages other federal agencies to give consideration to Candidate species in environmental planning. 2 807 4.2 State Regulatory Setting Project permitting and approval requires compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the 1984 California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the 1977 Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA). The CESA and NPPA authorize the California Fish and Game Commission to designate Endangered, Threatened and Rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (§§2050-2098, Fish & Game Code). The California Code of Regulations (Title 14, §670.5) lists animal species considered Endangered or Threatened by the State. The Natural Heritage Division of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers the state rare species program. CDFW maintains lists of designated Endangered, Threatened, and Rare plant and animal species (CDFW, 2008a and 2008b). Listed species either were designated under the NPPA or designated by the Fish and Game Commission. In addition to recognizing three levels of endangerment, the CDFW can afford interim protection to candidate species while they are being reviewed by the Fish and Game Commission. Under provisions of §15380(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the project lead agency and CDFW, in making a determination of significance, must treat non -listed plant and animal species as equivalent to listed species if such species satisfy the minimum biological criteria for listing. In general, the CDFW considers plant species on List IA (Plants Presumed Extinct in California), List 1B (Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere), or List 2 (Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere) of the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994) as qualifying for legal protection under §15380(d). Species on CNPS List 3 or 4 may, but generally do not, qualify for protection under this provision. Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species and CDFW Species of Special Concern, areas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted habitat types. Habitat types considered sensitive include those listed on the California Natural Diversity Data Base's (CNDDB) working list of "high priority" habitats (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California) (Holland 1986). 5.0 FLORISTIC INVENTORY AND HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION In classifying the habitat types on the Property, generalized plant community classification schemes were used (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). The final classification and characterization of the habitat types of the study area were based on field observations. The Properties support five habitat types: non-native annual grassland, riparian woodland, seasonal wetland, emergent wetland and drainage channel. 3 808 5.1 Annual Grassland Non-native annual grassland represents the dominant plant community on the Properties. As stated earlier, the Properties have been primarily used for grazing in the past. As a result, non- native annual grasses of European origin make up the dominant species. These species include wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), hare barley (Hordeum murinum spp. leporinum), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), among others. Common non-native forbs observed during field surveys include black mustard (Brassica nigra), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), filaree (Erodium spp.), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). 5.2 Riparian Woodland A group of willow (Salix sp) and cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) surround the quarry pond within the northern portion of the Anderson Property. On the Chen Property, a dense group of willow, cottonwood, and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees surround a perennial drainage within the northwestern corner of the Property. 5.3 Seasonal Wetland/Pond The seasonal wetlands across the Properties are characterized by Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), seaside barley (Hordeum marinum), Baltic rush, (Juncus balticus), bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), common toad rush (Juncus bufonius), beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), timothy grass (Phleum alpinum), bulrush (Typha latifolia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), hyssop lossestrife (Lythrym hyssopifolia), brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola),Congdon's tarplant, and rabbit's foot grass. 5.4 Emerjient Marsh The emergent marsh present on the Chen Property contains water year-round and is primarily characterized by a large stand of cattails (Typha sp.). The cattail stand covers the entire emergent marsh along with a few scattered willow trees (Salix spp.) present along the boundary of Croak Road. Several hydrophytic species are present within the willow undergrowth such as, cutleaf water parsnip (Berula erecta), prickly lettuce, and rabbits foot grass. 5.5 Drainaie Channel Five drainages exist on the Chen Property. One intermittent channel lies within the riparian woodland on the northwestern corner while the other four are spread within the hills of the north- 4 809 central part of the Property. Dominant vegetation within the drainage features consisted primarily of salt grass (Distichilis spicata), iris leaf rush (Juncus xiphioides) and rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) with sporadic yerba mansa (Anamopsis californica) and watercress (Nasturtium officinale) within the northwestern corner. Four additional ephemeral channels exist across the northern portion of the Chen Property. These channels vegetation characteristics are similar to the non-native grassland composition. 6.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY Olberding Environmental conducted focused surveys of literature and special -status species databases in order to identify special -status plant species and sensitive habitat types with potential to occur in the study area. Sources reviewed include: CNDDB occurrence records (CNDDB 2022) and the CNPS Inventory (Skinner and Pavlik 1994) for the Las Trampas Ridge, Diablo, Hayward, and Dublin USGS 7.5 quadrangles; and standard flora (Hickman 1993). From the above sources, a list of special -status plant species with potential to occur in the Property vicinity was developed (Attachment 2, Table 1). Special -status plant surveys were conducted in 2017 by Olberding Environmental biologists, Lisa Henderson and Kareesa Griffith on March 28, April 18, June 1, and June 28. Surveys were conducted in 2022 by Olberding Environmental biologists Lindsey Blessing, Veronica Giessler, and Mark Van Rietema, and Johnson Marigot Consulting biologists Sadie McGarvey and Haley Henderson, on March 17, April 12, May 3, June 28, and September 1. The surveys followed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2018) and CNPS (2001) published survey guidelines. These guidelines state that special -status surveys should be conducted at the proper time of year when special -status and locally significant plants are both evident and identifiable. Blooming periods for each surveyed species can be found in Table 2. These guidelines also state that the surveys be floristic in nature with every plant observed identified to the species, subspecies, or variety as necessary to determine their rarity status. Finally, these surveys must be conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics and accepted plant collection and documentation techniques. Following these guidelines, surveys were conducted during the time period when special -status plant species from the region were known to be evident and flowering. All regions of the Properties were examined by walking line transects through the entire site, and by closely examining the microhabitats that could potentially support special - status plants. All the plants found on the Properties were identified to species. A list of all vascular plant taxa encountered within the project Properties were recorded in the field (Attachment 2, Table 1). Plants that needed further evaluation were collected and keyed in the lab. Final determinations for collected plant material were made by keying using The Jepson Manual. 5 810 7.0 SURVEY RESULTS Attachment 2, Table 2 includes a list of special -status plants with the potential to occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Properties based on a review of the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles for Las Trampas Ridge, Diablo, Hayward, and Dublin. The special -status plant species identified by the CNDDB as potentially occurring in the Properties are known to grow from general habitat types similar to those encountered on the subject Properties. Many of the specific habitats or "micro -climate" necessary for the plant species to occur are found within the boundaries of the subject Properties. The habitats necessary for the CNDDB reported plant species consist of valley and foothill grassland, alkaline meadows, seasonal wetland, and seeps. Thirteen of the special -status plants listed in Table 2 were identified to have the potential to occur on the Properties as a result of the specific habitats identified within the Properties boundaries. These species include: alkali milk vetch, heartscale, brittlescale, lesser saltscale, big tarplant, round -leaved filaree, long -styled sand spurrey, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's tarplant, saline clover, hairless popcorn -flower, and large - flowered fiddleneck. Surveys were conducted during the appropriate blooming period of each above listed species. Alkali milk vetch, heartscale, brittlescale, lesser saltscale, big tarplant, round -leaved filaree, long -styled sand spurrey, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, hairless popcorn flower, and large -flowered fiddleneck were not observed during any of the surveys conducted in 2017 or in 2022. Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, and saline clover were observed during surveys conducted in either 2017 or in 2022. These species are discussed in further detail below. San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana). CNPS List 1B. San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the family Chenopodiaceae. Leaves of the San Joaquin spearscale are ovate to triangular, with fine gray scales above. Flowers are dense and spike or panicle -like with dark brown seeds. It is found in Alameda, Contra Costa, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito, Solano, and Yolo counties. It is considered extirpated in Santa Clara, San Joaquin, and Tulare counties. Habitat for the San Joaquin spearscale includes chenopod scrub, meadows, seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands with alkaline soils. Blooming occurs between April and October. Annual grassland habitat on the Properties is considered highly suitable for San Joaquin spearscale. CNDDB lists several occurrences within a five -mile radius of the site, including one immediately north of the Properties (Occurrence # 95). This species was not encountered during rare plant surveys conducted in 2017 but was observed during surveys conducted in 2022. In 2022, approximately 70 San Joaquin spearscale individuals were observed over 0.24 acres in the southern central portion of the Chen Property and along the dirt access road on the Anderson 6 811 Property. Attachment 1, Figure 7 shows the extent of the San Joaquin spearscale population on the Properties. Congdon's Tarplant (Centromadia parrvi ssp. congdonii). CNPS List 1B Congdon's tarplant is a member of the genus Hemizonia in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It is one of four subspecies of Parry's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi). Congdon's tarplant is a prostrate to erect, annual herb with rigidly spine -tipped leaves and yellow ray- and disk -flowers (head). It occurs in valley and foothill grasslands in moist alkaline soils and blooms between May and November. Historically, Congdon's tarplant was distributed from Solano County south to San Luis Obispo County, but is now severely threatened by development. The annual grassland habitat on the Properties is highly suitable for Congdon's tarplant, and this species is known to occur in the immediate vicinity of the Properties. CNDDB lists numerous occurrences of Congdon's tarplant within a five -mile radius of the Properties including Occurrence #11 located on the Property in 1999. This species was observed across the southern portion of both Properties during surveys conducted in 2017 and in 2022. In 2017, approximately 5,373 Congdon's tarplant individuals were located within 4.68 acres of space within the two Properties; 5028 plants were located within 4.32 acres on the Chen Property and 345 plants were located within 0.36 acres on the Anderson Property. In 2022, approximately 2200 individuals were observed across 1.90 acres located along the eastern edge of the western seasonal wetland feature on the Chen Property and in the southern portion of the Anderson Property. Attachment 1, Figure 7 shows the extent of the Congdon's tarplant population on the Properties. Saline Clover (Trifolium hvdrophilum). CNPS List 1B. Saline clover is member of the pea family, Fabaceae. Purple flowers bloom between April and June. This species is found in marshes and swamps, mesic valley and foothill grasslands with alkaline soils, and vernal pools, between 0 and 300 meters in elevation. It is thought to occur in Alameda, Colusa, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, Santa Clara, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. It is threatened by development and current fieldwork is needed to determine if populations still exist in many counties. The grassland and seasonal wetlands present on the Properties provide highly suitable habitat for this species. CNDDB lists one occurrence (Occurrence #7) of this species within the 5-mile radius of the Properties. This species was not observed during surveys conducted in 2017. However, in 2022, this species was observed on the Chen Property; approximately 100 saline clover individuals were identified over 0.25 acres located along the edge of the large seasonal wetland feature located at the western boundary of the Chen Property. Attachment 1, Figure 7 shows the extent of the saline clover population on the Properties. 7 812 8.0 CONCLUSIONS In summary, multiple surveys were conducted throughout 2017 and 2022 that resulted in the observation of three special status plant species; Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, and saline clover, are present within the boundaries of the Properties. Congdon's tarplant was observed during surveys conducted in both 2017 and 2022, while San Joaquin spearscale and saline clover were observed during surveys conducted in 2022. A population of approximately 100 saline clover individuals is present along the edge of the large seasonal wetland feature at the western boundary of the Chen Property. Approximately 70 San Joaquin spearscale individuals were observed over 0.24 acres in the southern central portion of the Chen Property and along the dirt access road on the Anderson Property. Finally, during 2022, approximately 2200 individuals of Congdon's tarplant were observed across 1.90 acres located along the eastern edge of the western seasonal wetland feature on the Chen Property and in the southern portion of the Anderson Property. 8 813 9.0 REFERENCES California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2022. Computer listings and map locations of historic and current recorded occurrences of special -status species and natural communities of special concern for USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps: Diablo, Dublin, Livermore, Hayward, Las Trampas Ridge, Tassajara, Walnut Creek, Clayton, Antioch South. Accessed on March 7, 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. State and federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare plants of California. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler. ashx?DocumentlD=109390&inline . 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=18959&inline . 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org Accessed March 7, 2022. . 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. . 1998. CPNS Policy on Mitigation Guidelines Regarding Impacts to Rare, Threatened or Endangered Plants. https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/mitigation.pdf Accessed September 6, 2022. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 2012. 1400 pp. Holland (1986) Preliminary Description of the Natural Communities of California. CDFW. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. 2nd Ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1 (5th edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 338 pp. 9 814 ATTACHMENT 1 FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Vicinity Map Figure 3 USGS Quadrangle Map Figure 4 Aerial Photograph Figure 5 CNDDB Special -Status Plants Map Figure 6 Soils Map Figure 7 Chen/Anderson Special -Status Plants Location Map 81 5 "a rrgr Ry PIerl.,Hit yd �o',rRd Fill) St`' Go 11e' walnut Creek ton. 1„'4 8 0), Rd Las Frampas Rego n al Wilderness hfand Valle `4 rr : land Hayward Ord Blvd Castro ' Clayton Mt Diablo State Park Diablo *MG Rd San won rgur C Yq PR mubirn Blvd Diamond Mines Regianal ParA -a IX n t ,rrr}; r"i`Rd i a _ Brentwood "' V. chestnut S r m In I. c.;lfqur Rd F- • n•Ii O I- yr til fr.; 4/�S ^y� L•ii-; h C} - Marsh Crash Rd oca Byron MwganTerrtory Pegiinol Proaerve a HiYyr and Rd 4 G ° Gann Regional Par}. 6y y o � tNhippleRd�{r - '� Union '. ° City aryR .$1P1r 4"/Pd n Oj r r . a o plate Parks Fremont Newark: $•+ram Yet C Ry ,� hdr r� $ 1.75 3.5 7 Scale: 1:250,000 1 inch = 4 miles 5 � x ,sir`i Brvd Vint, . Jeasatiton v„ a Mission Peak Rein nal Pat. 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 SL Surrol regional W llde me s e 4r Mt.; Fbo u nd V aF le ). Reg onal Park vase° kirk Vasco �v ave Byron rfamal Pbois A! torn on t p}s svia :1' e n 0 EastAv. 4 Livermore rr LeI Yale Regional Park * Property Locations Figure 1: Regional Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA 816 ro k,°QFm,ll let zt Yer rc he�A Stan crr ¢ap Ln 7. S 0�biln RaRcb°k Fnldield Peril A n lone 4.17 av 1S eke en Way sa`P.w kl e, Para ba8nn 8fyp TMapden WaY� Rldya cl5'� v umrna LAOA PalerWaN nY WA, Fake sp N. '1/4"Canfif��t Lav,nass $ V'yta L r 4' ininn Ave Of 41.ery wy4 5 44 rh '�6�t• 4 0~ o h FF uat Form �' O Fire, conmoin Poi 010 Odd yr 1 Kirkcaldy se m n fi ~ Stallansyne kwmw. E u1 4 E PrY Part' PI '" �d< ,�•Q • 5t E u j 9 - -- - " rn , elH nmry I2ennrs or ��rp4 PPrk J"i i`' card Ave g p; kP4r on Way a L. • mlde Pol.. Opd 0, S4 %. Trenery or ferrn n t u ❑ la p ASi e 0 1,000 2,000 Scale: 1:24,000 1 inch = 2,000 feet Feet 4,000 Avant! Ave San 1 mil: rr..rxn m,i , Et Charter Rd O c dF Terrae,naOr •lnY W Jack Lc"•ir..i• P. 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 2: Vicinity Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA 817 i �— 2 : APIE 2 LANE -� a A .M A D. Q R I A rroyo S A N T Santa Rita [t!!►e6aitabOn Cent.. I N. ows4:3e �- yP •�a1 b f .yam °•oo • • rnSCh i1 • A R 1 \ T, A Livermore USGS 7.5" Quadrangle 37°42'18.51 "N, 121 °50'46.48"W TO3S, RO1E, S3 0 1,000 2,000 Scale: 1:24,000 1 inch = 2,000 feet Feet 4,000 • • • a. Chen Property Anderson Property C s 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA 818 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 4: Aerial Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA Aerial Imagery Source & Date: USDA FSA NAIP, June 6, 2014 819 e 0 0.75 1.5 Scale: 1:100,000 1 inch = 2 miles 3 Miles 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 * Property Location --15-mile buffer CNDDB Plants Congdon's tarplant Mt. Diablo buckwheat San Joaquin spearscale i // brittlescale caper -fruited tropidocarpum hairless popcornflower prostrate vernal pool navarretia saline clover Figure 5: CNDDB Plants Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA Aerial Imagery Source & Date: SFEI & Quantum Spatial, June 12, 2014 820 co M 00 co co E W C 6l ce m U O m LL ET_ ZF' S Z c4Z LL] 2 m � 822 �" 8 Table 1 Table 2 ATTACHMENT 2 TABLES Plant Species Observed Special -Status Species for the Las Trampas Ridge, Diablo, Hayward, Dublin Quadrangle Maps 823 Table 1 Plant Species Observed 824 Table 1. Plant Species Observed Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area Scientific Name Common Name Plant Species Observed Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives Agoseris grandiflora California dandelion Amsinckia menziesii Menzie's fiddleneck Anamopsis californica Yerba mansa *Atriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale Avena fatua Wild oat Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Bellardia trixago Mediterranean lineseed Brassica nigra Black mustard Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceous Soft chess Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepard's purse Cardamine oligosperma Ideho bittercress Carduus pychnocephalus Italian thistle Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle * Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp. pungens Common tarweed Chamomilla suaveolens Pineapple weed Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Cotula coronopifolia Brass buttons Cressa truxillensis Alkali weed Cynara cardunculus Artichoke thistle Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Distichilis spicata Salt grass Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Downingia pulchella Flatface downingia Eleocharis paularis Spike rush Elymus triticoides Beardless wild rye Epilobium ciliatum Fringe willowherb Eremocarpus setigerus Dove weed Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Erodium botrys Big heron bill Erodium cicutarium Red -stemmed filaree Erodium moschatum White stemmed filaree Eschscholzia californica California poppy Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red gum Euphorbia peplus Petty spurge Festuca perennis Italian rye grass Frankenia salina Alkali heath Geranium dissectum Cut leaved geranium Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue 825 Table 1. Plant Species Observed Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area Scientific Name Common Name Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley Hordeum marinum var. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum var. leporinum Foxtail Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus balticus Baltic rush Juncus xiphioides Iris leaf rush Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Lepidium latipes Dwarf pepper grass Limosella acaulis Stemless mudwort Lotus corniculatus Bird's foot trefoil Lupinus sp. Lupine Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Lythrum hyssopifolia Loosestrife Lolium multorum Italian rye grass Malva parviflora Cheeseweed Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed Medicago lupulina Black medick Medicago polymorpha Bur clover Melilotus indicus Annual yellow sweetclover Microseris douglasii Douglas' microseris Nasturtium off cinale Watercress Nerium oleander Oleander Phalaris paradoxa Hood canarygrass Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue Plagiobothrys humistratus Dwarf allocarya Plagiobothrys sp. (other) Popcorn flower Plantago elongata Coastal plantain Plantago erecta California plantain Plantago lanceolata English plantain Pleuropogon californicus Semaphore grass Platycladus orientalis Oriental arborvitae Poa annua Annual bluegrass Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed Polypogon monspelinensis Rabbit's foot grass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Psilocarphus brevissimus Woolly marbles Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Quercus douglasii Blue oak Quercus lobata Valley oak Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus Cursed crowfoot Raphanus raphanistrum Wild radish Raphanus sativus Wild radish Rumex crispus Curly dock Salix exigua Narrowleaf willow Salix laevigata Red willow Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow 826 Table 1. Plant Species Observed Within/Adjacent to the Survey Area Scientific Name Common Name Salsola tragus Russian thistle Sidalcea malviflora Checker mallow Silybum marianum Milk thistle Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle Stellaria media Common chickweed Trifolium fucatum Bull clover Trifolium hirtum Rose clover *Trifolium hydrophilum Saline clover Trifolium tomentosum Woolly clover Trifolium variegatum Variegated clover Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Vicia villosa Hairy vetch Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water speedwell Veronica peregrina Neckweed Vicia sativa ssp. nigra Common vetch Vicia sativa Spring vetch Vicia villosa Hairy vetch Vulpia bromoides Six weeks fescue Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur * CNPS List 1B Species 827 Table 2 Special -Status Species for the Las Trampas Ridge, Diablo, Hayward, Dublin Quadrangle Maps 828 Table 2. Special -Status Species for the Diablo, Dublin, Hayward and Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site ** PLANTS May occur Not likely to occur Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent May occur May occur May occur Potential on Site? Moderate z z z z Moderate U Y i. Moderate Habitats of Occurrence Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, annual grassland in various soils. Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, and coastal bluff scrub. Broadleafed upland forest; lower montane coniferous forest; North Coast coniferous forest/damp rock and soil on outcrops, usually on roadcuts. cii 0 4j 0 cd 0 O U 0., O CA 0 O d Q 0 U 7 cd Chaparral, rocky slopes. Broadleafed upland forest, closed -cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, in sandy or gravely soils. Grows on uplifted marine terraces on siliceous shale or thin chert. May require fire. Playas, valley and foothill grasslands in adobe clay soils, and vernal pools in alkaline soils. Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland on alkaline flats and scalds, sandy soils. Chenopod scrub, meadows and sinks, playas, valley and foothill grasslands, and alkaline vernal pools with clay substrate. Blooming or Survey Period d March — June z January — March cct 0 czt tiwIII December — March March — June April — October May — October Status (Fed/State/CNPS) 2 E/E/1 B cv GC) T/E/1 B Common Name/ Scientific Name Large -Flowered Fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) Bent -Flowered Fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) Slender Silver Moss (Anomobryum julaceum) Mount Diablo Manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata) Contra Costa Manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. laevigata) Pallid Manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida) Alkali Milk -Vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener) Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata) Brittlescale (Atriplex depressa) 829 Table 2. Special -Status Species for the Diablo, Dublin, Hayward and Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site ** Present May occur Presumed Absent May occur May occur Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Present Presumed Absent Potential on Site? x Moderate Moderate Moderate 0 z Habitats of Occurrence Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland in alkaline soils. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley grassland and alkaline sinks. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothills grasslands, sometimes in serpentinite outcrops. Valley and foothill grassland, dry hills and plains in annual grassland, clay to clay -loam soils; usually on slopes and often in burned areas. Cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland in clay soils. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland; on wooded and brushy slopes. Chaparral, in rocky, usually serpentine soils. Coastal prairie, lake margins that form marshes or swamps, and valley and foothill grasslands. Valley and foothill grasslands in alkaline soils. Openings in cismontane woodlands, coastal dunes, and in valley and foothill grasslands with sandy or gravelly soils. Blooming or Survey Period April — October May — October March — June July — October March — May a) ti 1 May — June May — September June — November April — September Status (Fed/State/CNPS) 2 = 11 = = = 1 cv G� W Common Name/ Scientific Name San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) Lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula) Big -Scale Balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis) Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) Round -Leaved Filaree (California macrophylla) Mount Diablo Fairy - Lantern (Calochortus pulchellus) Chaparral Harebell (Campanula exigua) Bristly Sedge (Carex comosa) Congdon's Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) Robust Spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) 830 Table 2. Special -Status Species for the Diablo, Dublin, Hayward and Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site ** .. Presumed Absent Not Likely to Occur Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Potential on Site? z 00 z z 0 z 0 7 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z Habitats of Occurrence Serpentine outcrops in valley and foothill grassland or coastal scrub. Meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grasslands in alkaline soils. Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland; usually on Pescadero silty clay which is alkaline, with Distichlis, Frankenia, etc. Valley and foothill grassland, in coarse sand, inland dunes. Cismontane woodland, chaparral; in wet, boggy meadows, openings in chaparral and in canyons, mesic. Chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands in alkaline soils. Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest; intermittently mesic, rock. Broadleafed upland forest, closed -cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and mesic riparian woodland. Chaparral, coastal prairie, and valley and foothill grassland in serpentine soils. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest (maritime ponderosa pine sandhills), sandy. Blooming or Survey Period ., June — September May October ti March — May z January — April June — September June — October Status (Fed/State/CNPS) 2 E/E/ 1 B = E/E/ 1 B ¢ = as N as as a Common Name/ Scientific Name Presidio Clarkia (Clarkia franciscana) Hispid Bird's -Beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. hispidus) Palmate-Bracted Bird's - Beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) Hoover's Cryptantha (Cryptantha hooveri) Hospital Canyon Larkspur (Delphinium californicum ssp. interius) Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) Norris' Beard Moss (Didymodon norrisii) Western Leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) Tiburon Buckwheat (Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum) Ben Lomond Buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens) 831 Table 2. Special -Status Species for the Diablo, Dublin, Hayward and Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site ** .. Presumed Absent Not Likely to Occur Not Likely to Occur Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Possibly extirpated in this area Possibly extirpated in this area Potential on Site? z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z z 7 z Habitats of Occurrence i Chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands in sandy soils. Valley and foothill grassland, alkaline, clay slopes and flats. Cismontane woodland, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland; sometimes on serpentine, mostly found on non- native grassland or in grassy openings in clay soil. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest; on shale, granite, or serpentine talus. Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, often in serpentine soils. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Usually in chaparral/oak woodland interface in rocky, azonal soils, often in partial shade. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Often in rocky serpentine soils. Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, often with clay, sandy soils; often with non - natives. Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, and vernal pools, swales, and low depressions in open grassy areas. Blooming or Survey Period April — November March — April February — April March — May February — April March — June ti I cct June — October March — June Status (Fed/State/CNPS) 2 = as as a ca ca ?= as w Common Name/ Scientific Name i Mount Diablo Buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum) Diamond -Petaled California Poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala) Stinkbells (Fritillaria agrestis) Talus Fritillary (Fritillaria falcata) Fragrant Fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) Diablo Helianthella (Helianthella castanea) Brewer's Western Flax (Hesperolinon breweri) Santa Cruz Tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) Contra Costa Goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) 832 Table 2. Special -Status Species for the Diablo, Dublin, Hayward and Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site ** Presumed Absent Not Likely to Occur Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Not Likely to Occur Presumed Absent May Occur Presumed Absent Present Potential on Site? z z z z o a z z �'z Habitats of Occurrence Broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland in clay and serpentine soils. Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, chenopod scrub, mostly on adobe clay in grassland or among shrubs. Chaparral and coastal scrub, some populations on serpentine soil. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands in rocky soils. Chaparral and cismontane woodland. Openings in broadleafed upland forest and chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, alkaline. Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, alkaline soils in grassland, or in mesic vernal pools, meadows and seeps. Chaparral, cismontane woodland; adjacent to trails, on rock outcrops and talus slopes; sometimes on serpentine. Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grasslands with mesic, alkaline soils, and vernal pools. Blooming or Survey Period June — October March — May May — September March — May June — August June — July March — June April June April — May o ti Status (Fed/State/CNPS) 2 M M PQ M en M Common Name/ Scientific Name Woolly -Headed Lessingia (Lessingia hololeuca) Showy Golden Madia (Madia radiata) Hall's Bush -Mallow (Malacothamnus hallii) Mount Diablo Cottonweed (Micropus amphibolus) San Antonio Hills Monardella (Monardella antonina ssp. antonina) Robust Monardella (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa) Little Mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus) Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) Mount Diablo Phacelia (Phacelia phacelioides) Saline Clover (Trifolium hydrophilum) 833 Table 2. Special -Status Species for the Diablo, Dublin, Hayward and Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps' Status on Site ** May Occur Presumed Absent E c o °' a g r, I F Y r Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Presumed Absent Potential on Site? Moderate z a Z Z z Z Z Habitats of Occurrence Meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, coastal salt marshes and alkaline meadows. Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest from 0-1830 meters in elevation. Assorted freshwater marshes and swamps. Shallow, clear water of lakes and channels. Assorted freshwater marshes and swamps. Meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, chaparral, and coastal prairie. Moist clay or ultramafic soils, wet and dry clay soils, coastal sage scrub. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland; bedrock outcrops and talus slopes in chaparral or oak woodland habitat. Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, drying alkaline flats, chaparral. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands in serpentine soils on ridges and slopes. Blooming or Survey Period March — May April — September May — July June — July February — May April — May January — April April — June Status (Fed/State/CNPS) 2 N N N N Common Name/ Scientific Name Hairless Popcorn -Flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) Oregon Polemonium (Polemonium carneum) Slender -Leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton filiformis) Eel -Grass Pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) Adobe Sanicle (Sanicula maritima) Rock Sanicle (Sanicula saxatilis) Rayless or Chaparral Ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) Most Beautiful Jewel - Flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus) 834 Table 2. Special -Status Species for the Diablo, Dublin, Hayward and Las Trampas Ridge 7.5-minute Quadrangle Maps' d • CA M a • © i Habitats of Occurrence V] F l cu CI) zz E O 0 O z 0 z O z 0 z Alkaline meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps. March — June 0 ti Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub; moss growing on soil. z Valley and foothill grasslands on alkaline hills. N Long -styled sand spurrey ,) N ti 0 i A Y 0 0 w (Streptanthus hispidus) Rancheria Clover (Trifolium amoenum) Coastal Triquetrella (Moss) (Triquetrella californica) Oval -Leaved Viburnum (Viburnum ellipticum) O � O � U a � v) o N o U cd E NU 0) o 3 ct c 0) cl = al O 0 0) CA u ,•I MI • 2 L•I Z ( a' o O Ob LttL o � Y cn c00 o- ak) `�' O N rii 00 O N C) O c C Q ° U '0 s. O (� W o cd czi 0 04 czt 0 aA - , d • = on cd • -, 0 c c� r O • U °.ow O Oo•.. -0.--,U 0 ow >1 ^C V)) a' w ❑ a.. 3 !�. -0 0 CID a) O• O • 1.70 oz oy °. W 2 o o'- - W - U c 0) - �s+ - v V) cd c• 0 U 49 •v o O 71 00 0)i o:11 -:;;:a. .0) CC • m Vi 6) 0 i•. L•I cs cry NN cd�RiO O i•. ci yp" y y z -. rn 0, U O Q. � • - .-.�' g p" r: ct � cyC y OV)P-i C4 f�'U V) V) V) a y.O � � `.+'a U O 0 °'0';;aazaaaaao o 0wwu: I UU U ' 7.1 ��UWE^Ri--NM 7 d v)0 �N 835 ATTACHMENT 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 836 1. Facing northwest, photo shows grassland habitat in the foreground, wetland habitat in the middle ground, and upland habitat in the background with grazing cattle. March 17, 2022 2. Facing west, photo shows cattle grazing the grassland habitat on the southern portion of the Property. March 17, 2022 Dublin Fallon East — 2022 OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• 837 3. Facing west, photo shows grassland habitat with Congdon's tarplant population in the foreground. March 17, 2022 4. Photo shows Congdon's tarplant observed adjacent to the western wetland. June 28, 2022 Dublin Fallon East — 2022 OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• 838 5. Facing north, photo shows wetland area inundated with water. March 17, 2022 � ' - diS , ,t..4 iR , a ti �` ".'ice " 1 }( .:. � ' Rr• y ri f a 5i l v • L'f'�`.....e' k Z t • �v "rT"([ J�h-' t f !ci`.":.�. r . c 6. Photo shows San Joaquin spearscale observed on the Property. April 12, 2022 Dublin Fallon East — 2022 OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• 839 7. Photo shows saline clover individual observed on the Property. April 12, 2022 8. Facing north, photo shows the large seasonal wetland feature across the western portion of the Chen Property as well as the annual grassland habitat in the background. June 1, 2017. Dublin Fallon East — 2022 OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• 840 9. Facing east, photo shows grazed annual grassland with Congdon's tarplant present along the southern portion of the Chen Property. June 28, 2017. 10. Photo shows a large Congdon's tarplant plant in full bloom. June 28, 2017. Dublin Fallon East — 2022 OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL• 841 11. Facing northwest, photo shows the quarry pond on the Anderson Property. June 1, 2017. Dublin Fallon East — 2022 OLBERDING •ENVIRONMENTAL - 842 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix E Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 90-Day Report 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 843 LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPOD WET SEASON SURVEY 90-DAY REPORT FOR THE DUBLIN FALLON EAST PROPERTY CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GH PACVEST, LLC. 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 Prepared by: OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Wetland Regulatory Consultants Contact: Jeff Olberding 193 Blue Ravine, Suite 165 Folsom, California 95630 Phone: (925) 866-2111 NOVEMBER 2022 844 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 LOCATION 1 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT 2 4.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 3 4.1 Wet Season Sampling 3 4.2 Dry Season Sampling 3 4.2.1 Soil Collection, Processing, And Analysis 3 4.2.2 Cyst Culturing 4 5.0 SURVEYED FEATURES 4 6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4 6.1 Wet Season Results 5 6.2 Dry Season Results 6 6.3 Cyst Culturing Results 6 7.0 REFERENCES 7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Figures Attachment 2 Photo Documentation Attachment 3 Raw Data Attachment 4 Dry Season Report Attachment 5 Cyst Culturing Report Attachment 6 2018 Non -Protocol Level Wet Season Report Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey i Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 845 USFWS REFERENCE NUMBER 2018-TA-1783 1.0 SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of protocol level wet and dry season surveys for listed large branchiopods conducted within aquatic features on the Dublin Fallon East Property during the 2021/2022 season. Additionally, this report includes survey results of the non -protocol level wet season surveys that were conducted on the property during the 2018 season. Survey target species included federally endangered longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), and federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchii). The 2021/2022 protocol level wet season surveys were conducted by Olberding Environmental Inc. between December 2021, and April 2022 with the accompanying dry season sampling conducted by Madrone Ecological on June 1st, and August 10th, 2022. Additional identification work in the form of cyst culturing was conducted by Helm Biological Consulting between June and October 2022. The methods and results from the dry season survey and cyst culturing are summarized within this report, and both reports are included as Attachments 4 and 5. The additional non -protocol level wet season surveys were conducted by Olberding Environmental Inc. between April 2018, and June 2018 and is included as Attachment 6. Field surveys were conducted under the authorization of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Endangered/Threatened Species Take Permit No. TE-85618B-0. 2.0 LOCATION The Properties consist of approximately 135 acres and 50 acres respectively located just east of the intersection of Fallon Road and Croak Road, north of I-580, in Dublin, California. Attachment 1, Figure 1 depicts the regional location of the Properties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Attachment 1, Figure 2 illustrates the vicinity of the Properties in relationship to the City of Dublin. Attachment 1, Figure 3 identifies the locations of the Properties on a USGS Quadrangle base map. Attachment 1, Figure 4 shows an aerial of the Properties. Access to the Properties is provided from Interstate 580. From 580, take the El Charro/Fallon Road exit and make a left onto Fallon Road. Travel north for 0.5 miles then make a right onto Croak Road, the west portion of the property will be found on the right. Continue on Croak Road for 0.2 miles, the east portion of the property will be on the right. These two separate parcels, bisected north to south by Croak Road, make up the Dublin Fallon East Property. Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 1 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 846 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT A majority of the Property support California non-native annual grassland habitat. Plant species diversity is low, primarily due to grazing pressure. Dominant plant species include a mixture of annual grasses as well as forbs that are common to locally abundant at various times of the year. On the east portion of the property, an abandoned quarry pit in the north portion of the site supports a large isolated seasonal wetland and freshwater marsh bordered by a small band of riparian woodland. Two small, isolated seasonal wetlands are found in the southwestern portion of the Property. On the west portion of the property, a small section of riparian woodland habitat occurs in the northwestern corner of the Property. Four ephemeral drainages occur within the valleys among the steep grass covered hillsides and an additional drainage flows through the riparian habitat. Multiple wetland features were observed on the Property, with the largest wetland located along the western portion of the Property. Water exits a culvert just outside the boundary of the Property and discharges onto the Property creating a large wetland across the southwestern portion of the Property. There are two other areas where wetlands exist, one in the southeastern corner of the Property and the other in the northeastern corner at the top of one of the drainage features. A line of ornamental trees was observed along the western and southwestern corner just outside of the Property. Table 1 below shows the precipitation records for the 2021/2022 water year from the Livermore weather station, as compared to the average precipitation (2000 — 2020) from the region (NOAA 2022). During the 2021/2022 water season, the Livermore area experienced slightly less precipitation than average at 12.83 inches, approximately 85% of the normal 15.18 inches. Table 1. 2021/2022 Water Year and Annual Average Precipitation for Livermore, CA. Month 2021/2022 Water Year Precipitation Average Annual Precipitation Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 0.02 2.83 0.03 2.92 0.48 2.25 1.03 1.08 0 0.56 0 0.14 0 0 0 0.09 0.49 0.08 5.22 0.75 0.71 1.68 4.85 2.8 TOTAL 12.83 15.18 Weather conditions during the wet season survey events varied throughout the year; basic weather conditions for each survey event are recorded on the data sheets included as Attachment 3. Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 2 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 847 4.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS The USFWS granted approval to survey the site on November 9, 2021. The 2021/2022 protocol level surveys were conducted every two weeks through the beginning of April 2022. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of our permit # 2018-TA-1783 and as outlined in the November 13, 2017, Survey Guidelines for Large Listed Branchiopods (USFWS 2017). 4.1 Wet Season Sampling The surveyed features were sampled with a 5-foot-long dip net with a 12 inch wide net frame and 650 micron mesh. Sampling technique involved making a series of pulls by extending the net out and pulling it back in a sweeping motion. The net was examined for the presence of branchiopods and then cleaned of debris between pulls. The average effort ranged between five (5) to fifteen (15) pulls per survey feature depending on the size of the feature. In addition, the survey features were visually scanned for the presence or branchiopods prior to each net pull. All other invertebrates and vertebrates were identified to species and documented on the data sheets. Air temperature, water temperature, and approximate maximum depth of ponding was measured and recorded during each sampling session for each sampled feature. Any surface feature that was inundated with 3 centimeters or more of water at the time of the individual survey was subject to sampling. 4.2 Dry Season Sampling Methods followed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS 2017) Survey Guidelines for Listed Large Branchiopods for dry -season sampling and consisted of first soil collection, second soil processing and analysis, and last cyst culturing as described below. 4.2.1 Soil Collection, Processing, And Analysis Soil samples from 16 features were collected on June 1, 2022, by Madrone biologist Dustin Brown. All depressional features that appeared to pond water were sampled. The soil samples were processed following methods outlined in Survey Guidelines for Large Listed Branchiopods (USFWS 2017) and described below. A brine solution was prepared by mixing table salt (NaC1) with lukewarm tap water in a large container. The soil material collected from each aquatic feature was placed into the brine solution and worked by hand to break down soil structure. The organic material rising to the top of the brine solution was poured onto a 710-micron-diameter pore -size sieve stacked atop a 150-micron- diameter pore -size sieve. The soil material was processed through the top sieve by flushing it with lukewarm tap water while gently rubbing it with a soft -bristle brush. The organic material retained from the 150-micron-diameter pore -size sieve was then rinsed gently with lukewarm tap water, and then removed and thinly distributed into plastic Petri dishes. All sieved fractions were microscopically inspected for the presence of large branchiopod eggs. Evidence of other aquatic invertebrates encountered was also noted on the lab data sheet. Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 3 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 848 4.2.2 Cyst Culturing Petri dishes containing soils with Branchinecta cysts were placed into individual 6-quart sized plastic containers. The soils were saturated with 50° F well water (non -chlorinated) and allowed to dry. This saturation and drying process was repeated three times. The soils were then inundated completely with 50° F well water. The containers holding the inundated soils were inserted into an environmental chamber. The environmental chamber controls were set to mimic the winter light, humidity, and temperature fluctuations of the Project's vicinity. The contents of the containers were monitored daily for fairy shrimp hatchlings (instars). If no hatchlings were observed after ten (10) days, the containers were removed from the environmental chamber and the soils were allowed to completely dry before reinitiating the hatching process described above. To expedite the culturing process, all emerging instars were removed from their original containers and placed into a separate container. The original container was dried, and the culturing process was repeated. This technique allows multiple generations of instars to continue to grow to maturity simultaneously. A total of three hatching attempts were performed on each soil sample. Fairy shrimp hatchlings were feed ground fish food and reared in the environmental chamber until they were mature enough to be identified using dichotomous keys and diagrams from "Fairy Shrimps of California's Puddles, Pools, and Playas" (Eriksen and Belk 1999), two more recent publications concerning the identification of San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and versatile fairy shrimp (B. lindahli) (Simovich et al 2013; Patel et al. 2018), and compared to Dr. Helm's large branchiopod reference collection. 5.0 SURVEYED FEATURES A jurisdictional wetland delineation was verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during 2018. The verified wetland delineation resulted in a total of 11.18 acres of wetlands, 0.1 acre of "other waters", and 0.091 acre of wetland swales throughout the Dublin Fallon East Property. Surveying efforts focused on the seasonal wetlands; however, ditches and other parts of the site that ponded water to a depth of at least 3 centimeters were subject to sampling. Features sampled included pools, seasonal wetlands, and wetland swales. The exact number of surveyed features for each event ranged dramatically due to natural precipitation. A summary of the number of features sampled per survey event is provided below in Section 6.1. 6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The USFWS granted approval to conduct wet season surveys on November 9, 2021. Protocol level surveys began on December 8, 2021, with subsequent surveys taking place every two weeks from December into April. Surveys were conducted on December 27, 2021, January 10, February 7, February 21, March 8, March 21, and April 5, 2022; in accordance with the terms and conditions Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 4 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 849 of our permit (#2018-TA-1783) and as outlined in the November 13, 2017, Survey Guidelines for Large Listed Branchiopods (USFWS 2017). 6.1 Wet Season Results The number of features sampled per survey event is provided below: • Event 1 — December 27 — 23 features sampled • Event 2 — January 10 — 13 features sampled • Event 3 — January 24 — 11 features sampled • Event 4 — February 7 — 11 features sampled • Event 5 — February 21 — 7 features sampled • Event 6 — March 8 — 7 features sampled • Event 7 — March 21 — 6 features sampled • Event 8 — April 5 — 5 features sampled During the 2021/2022 wet season survey events, the most common invertebrate species that were observed included non -biting midges (Chironomidae), water flea (Cladocera), copepods (Copepoda), semi-aqutic fly (Diptera), blood worms (Glycera sp.), flat worms (Planaria), mosquito larvae (Culicidae), predaceous diving beetle (Dytiscidae), seed shrimp (Ostracods), clam shrimp (Diplostraca), backswimmer (Notonectid), water boatman (Corixidae), and flatworms. Additionally, Pacific chorus frog tadpoles (Pseudacris regilla) were also commonly observed within many of the aquatic features. Additional invertebrates that were occasionally observed includes amphiods (Hyallea sp.), mayfly (Centroptilum sp.), glass worm (Chaoborus sp.), and dragonfly larvae (Anisoptera sp.) (See Attachment 3). No sensitive invertebrates were observed onsite. However, California tiger salamander larvae (Ambystoma californiense; CTS) were observed within several of the sampled features on numerous dates. Specifically, CTS larvae were observed in feature An-P1-1 on February 21 and March 8, 2022, and in features An-SW8-3 and An-P1-3 on March 21 and April 5, 2022. When CTS were discovered in a particular feature they were immediately released, and sampling continued elsewhere. Additionally, permitted biologist, Lisa Henderson (TE-13115C-0) was on site during each of the observations and was able to positively identify the small larvae and be sure they were released unharmed. Survey results from the non -protocol level wet season survey in 2018 included one male and two female individuals of the non -listed species Branchinecta lindahli (versatile fairy shrimp). These individuals were observed within the feature Ch-EW1 near the southwest of the Property. Commonly encountered aquatic organisms during the 2018 surveys included Pacific chorus frog tadpoles, water boatman, diving beetles, scuds (Gammarus), dragonfly larvae, and mosquito larvae. The 2018 non -protocol level wet season survey results are included as Attachment 6. Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 5 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 850 In general, most of the site has very few areas that are conducive to fairy shrimp survival. There are no true vernal pools onsite, and most of the isolated features where fairy shrimp may occur are in ditches cut off from continuous water flow, or small seasonal wetlands and depressions scattered throughout the site. In addition, many of these smaller sites do not pond long enough to sustain the fairy shrimp life cycle. No federally listed vernal pool branchiopods were observed within the Property during the 2021/2022 or the 2018 wet season sampling. 6.2 Dry Season Results A total of 16 pools were sampled by Madrone Ecological as part of the Dry Season surveys. This included features An-P1, An-SW1, An-SW2, An-SW3, An-SW6, An-SW7, An-SW8, An-SW9, An-SW10, Ch-SW1, Ch-SW2, Ch-SW3, Ch-SW4, and Ch-SW5. Most of the features did not contain any branchiopod species, however two of the features sampled (CH-SW2 and CH-SW3) contained small amounts of Branchinecta sp. cysts. These cysts were saved and provided to Brent Helm of Helm Biological Consulting to hatch. Other invertebrate taxa observed in the soil samples included micro-Tubellaria, Cladocera, Ostracoda, nematoda, hydracarina, and Collembola. The full dry season survey report is included as Attachment 4. 6.3 Cyst Culturing Results The Branchinecta cysts from Madrone Ecological were provided to Helm Biological Consulting to hatch. The cysts from CH-SW3 were positively identified on August 9th, 2022, as the common versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli). Additional samples were collected from CH-SW2 on August 10th due to the inability for the first samples to hatch. The second round of cysts from CH-SW2 were also identified to be versatile fairy shrimp. The cyst culturing survey report is included as Attachment 5. No federally listed vernal pool branchiopods were observed within the Property during the 2022 dry season sampling or cyst culturing. Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 6 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 851 7.0 REFERENCES Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California's puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA. 196 pp. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022. Climatological precipitation summary for Livermore. National Weather Service. San Francisco Area Weather Forecast Office. Monterey, CA. Available online at https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=mtr. Accessed October 11, 2022. Patel, K.V., Simovich, M.A., Graige, N.S. and Bohonak, A.J., 2018. A clash of characters: The effect of variation on a morphological hybrid index for an endangered California fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Fugate, 1993) (Crustacea: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 38(3), pp.349-353. Simovich, M.A., Davis, K.B. and Bohonak, A.J., 2013. Landscape homogenization threatens the genetic integrity of the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Branchiopoda: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 33(5), pp.730-740. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. Survey Guidelines for Large Listed Branchiopods. Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA. Revised 11/13/2019. Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 7 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Dublin Fallon East Property November 2022 852 Attachment 1 Figures 853 Plea ant Hill e r aC W:Omit Cre 4i T r; -tt-- n p 1 a Casco tan a (, e, a yO Hd tpSt Hayward Ha —wary and Union City Newark Ch 0 2 f Clayton MI Diar,d,-, Slate Pai4 5ah Ramon yr Bnlliage c r ro a 4 v .ii lin Dublin Blvd 0' Hr,s,hrar,a Rry aDs' shin d i Valley Vinoy eaianton y"Av ties CanMoft Rd 8 Miles Scale: 1:250,000 1 in = 4 miles Print at 8.5" x 11" t 6 V si1 ��cd° �ry away N Sun!el kJ n T �. Brentwood i Balfour Rd • a o IP4 .4/nod Blvd t 0 Ea:tAve Livermore > n 1 r• Byron QS � r DiscC. on Pse S Ry Y ip. Graanviiie Rd Concannon 9W6 Tesla Rd P attffra or, Pass Survey Location Document Path: C:\Project Work\Dublin Fallon East\GIS\mxd\DublinFallonEast_Figurel_RegionalMap.mxd OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 1: Regional Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONttENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 854 -00 pa d 1n r. a° c j A S P C�i hliri fn ra i5.-11 ..iii- U . 17 II, tl 3. O 6 1 % cc / C k4 a , e.of :y � fit'. - p+ sn DSS E rW p 4Blnit in - Falapell Poly °iviuf. occi A�rorry WaY m QuOla Rane. s Q`aextdale aanta`" }aaddvn WAY rS ohrl on Way v �fli Rid pctleld JBradlc'Nay Vlll orli L0ra9 ra„, rn pLhlllr 81vd _ ❑u unn R rm I. C,urw. Aran Way prams n Hlr kcal dy St y Fmrl an CIS Dr m aceq yy5` E it Cur. w _ - E r%¢ Dnthr le St sire 211.1a0 Ballantvna A4edo. e [7 Csk Park P1 f4I W La, PosItas Blvd �µ st aat6*v a IXMonl SScneridge Dr Snowdrop, ; - N Cho y'aNO` Amery O nnfa Dr t. y Pak 0 Falun Skona Park card Rya M" von Way e Wll de4 Tronery Dr CIr rbel Hn+ el $ kip Park .S Am4%4 d'. p y NCO R q ^n1' r a '._7 C o u e N o Auanlf q� orin4 a. G O riaV 9erty Dr , s�tanO pmsq � 40 2 9' ▪ dnlara�� SSA -a oD 0 ,4 1, y* La vinaSr m y valley yr:u Dr Vln! a� on A`e ` D+ A very ys» 4 P V a VI � as y� Central Pk pry Son Fra Pa, un.rr ohm -. Fr Charro Rd e 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale: 1:24,000 1 in = 2,000 feet Print at 8.5" x 11" WWQ Rd WJaCk.London Blvd CI Clrfh NW9e Dr g4nlnel Survey Area Document Path: C:\Protect Work\Dublin Fallon East\GIS\mxd\DublinFallonEast Fipure2 VicinityMap.mxd OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 2: Vicinity Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONhtENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 855 • L, REFD FWY PIMt HCOd tiP� pN NISr. 2 e z HALLaN Livermore 7.5" USGS Quad 37.7050000,-121.8450000 T3S, R1E, S2 & S3 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale: 1:24,000 1 in = 2,000 feet Print at 8.5" x 11" J CPtL+F:+ CANYON RI-J ARTHUR H BREED FWY M. Survey Area Document Path: C:\Protect Work\Dublin Fallon East\GIS\mxd\DublinFallonEast Fiqure3 TopoMap.mxd OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONhtENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 856 OLBERDING 193 Blue Ravine Road, Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Document Path: C:\P o'ect Work\D blin Fa10 East \GI€\dlxd\DublinFallonEast Fi.ure4- AerialMap.mxd Figure 4: Aerial Map Dublin Fallon East Property Alameda County, California -ENVIRONMENTAL- Revision Date: 09/06/2022 857 Map Revision Date: 9/22/2022 858 Attachment 2 Photo Documentation 859 1. Photo of pool feature An-P1 and the surrounding seasonal wetlands, looking west. Photo taken 12/27/2021. 2. Photo 2 is taken from approximately the same location as photo 1 above, except on 2/22/2022. Note there is significantly less standing water across the landscape. Dublin Fallon East: 90-Day Report — 2021/2022 OLBERDING -ENVIRONMENTAL- 860 3. Photo of pool feature Ch-P1, looking west. Photo taken 2/22/2022. 4. Photo of seasonal wetland feature Ch-SW1, looking west. Photo taken 1/10/2022. Dublin Fallon East: 90-Day Report — 2021/2022 OLBERDING -ENVIRONMENTAL- 861 5. Photo of seasonal wetland feature An-SW1, looking southeast. Photo taken 12/27/2021. 6. Photo of seasonal wetland feature An-Sw2, looking east. Photo taken 12/27/2021. Dublin Fallon East: 90-Day Report — 2021/2022 OLBERDING -ENVIRONMENTAL- 862 7. Photo of pool feature An-P1, looking northwest. Photo taken 1/10/2022. 8. Photo of seasonal wetland feature An-SW8, looking west. Photo taken 12/27/2021. AIL Dublin Fallon East: 90-Day Report — 2021/2022 OLBERDING -ENVIRONMENTAL- 863 Attachment 3 Raw Data 864 0 0 c rcs N O U N N Q 00 N UA N C C i aJ 0 U O • 0 t c a) 2Qi +' rts J 0 Chen/Anderson Z O C u r u X X X X s 2 E o X X X X 8 E a X X X f u X a `o u a t, 0 2 i X X X X 9 O O V O O X X X X X X X G a u u' 0 X X X E t t. o i C 6 ci .C_ LD C 3 CC N M CC M 3 CCGC_ 3 3c-I C 00 CC lD M C M C M CC M M CC 3 L7) C t C c1 c-I C c-I c-I C i c c-I Features 0_ -C U Ch-SW1-1 N c I V) -C U Ch-SW1-3 d- c I cn -C C.) Ln c-i I to - U LO c I cn - U N- c-I to - U 00 t -I V) - U Ql c-I v7 - U O c-I t -I V) - U c-I c-I c-I to - U c-I V) - U Ch-SW4-2 c-I V.11 VI) U Ch-SW5-2 Ch-SW5-3 C Q An-SW2 c-I 00 CCCC Q t -I 0_ Q N 0_ Q CO 0_ Q Abundance ratings 5 sweeps S o 865 co aJ V V) Chen/Anderson N O N O a --I Notes ' T W L O K u V1 f V 3 Y X 1- 2 d X X E 0 0 0 V 0 O a E- E ‹ X d 2 % a V X 9 • x O V X C 0 0 2 X X X m = m X X X -o a a V X X 4 O O m o m V X X X X X X X Cyzicus E v. c X Fairy shrimp o- a g c 6 r1 C t9 C t9 C N C m C m C m c LSD C LP1 C tD S_ r-I r1 S_ r-1 r-I S_ r-1 % -1 'Features U Ch-SW1-1 Ch-SW1-2 rill , -1 N U Ch-SW1-4 71 f N u Ch-SW5-1 r-1 U c < r-1 00 N c < An-SW8-2 An-SW8-3 -I d c < d c < Abundance ratings 5 sweeps 11 to 50 Species co Z V > < X Not Common 866 Chen/Anderson Notes ' T W L O K V V1 f V 3 Y X X 1- 2 d X X vs o E L V X 9 O a EE X X d 2 % a V X 9 x O V X C 0 ; z X X X X IX m X X -o a a V 4 O r. O X R o R V X X X X X X Cyzicus a n c X`a Fairy shrimp g Ln M N N M 1.11 IX) % -I % -1 % -1 % -1 'Features U Ch-SW1-1 Ch-SW1-2 M % -1 N U rn % -1 N U 1 00 C < An-SW8-2 An-SW8-3 d C < d C < d C < Abundance ratings 5 sweeps a N � Not Common 11 to 50 Species 867 iO 0 Chen/Anderson Notes ' T W L O u V1 u V 3 Y X X 1- 2 d X X vl o E L V X 9 O a EE X X d 2 % a V X X X 9 •x O V X X X C 0 0 z X X X X X IX m X -o a 0 V X X X 4 O r. O X X X X R o a V X X X XXX X X Cyzicus a n c X`a Fairy shrimp g Ln M N N M ll1 'la % -I % -1 % -1 % -1 'Features U Ch-SW1-1 Ch-SW1-2 m c-I N U al c-I N U 00 C < An-SW8-2 An-SW8-3 % -1 d C < N d C < Cr) d C < Abundance ratings 5 sweeps a N � Not Common 11 to 50 Species 868 N 0 N r-I N N 4, V Ci Chen/Anderson z O CTslarvae observed X X 5 X X X E X X o. E X X X X X •`o X 0 z X X X X X 6 O V X X X E c • Lr N 00 c 00 c 00 i N r-I U M r-I U Ql U r-1 r-1 a. N r-I a. r-1 Abundance ratings 5 sweeps EE 0 N 2z E E a 869 Chen/Anderson 4, V ea 1— J CC z J CO U z O CTslarvae observed X X 5 X X X E X 0 X n E X X X X X • X X 0 z X X X X X 6 O V X X X 0 0. E c 3 • N 00 c 00 c 00 4,2 CL i N r-I U M r-1 U • U r-1 r-1 CL N r-1 CL r-1 Abundance ratings 5 sweeps EE 0 N 2 z E E a 870 Chen/Anderson OtherlNotes CTS larvae observed CTS larvae observed V1 u V X X 3 X X Chironomid v 0. E. E X x x V 0 0 z x X m c n V 4 O 0 x `a 0 V x X x x E C lD 00 00 00 al r-1 U M 0> r-1 r-I a N r-I a M r-I a Abundance ratings 5 sweeps 3-10 species Not Common 11 to 50 Species E E 3 Very common 871 N 0 N Lfl (5 0 Chen/Anderson OtherlNotes CTS larvae observed CTS larvae observed X f V X 3 X Chironomid v 0. E. E x x V 9 O V O 0 z X X m 0 0 Vo 4 O 17. O X O V X X X .' u E 0 i c rl CL U rn rl a N rl a Abundance ratings 5 sweeps 3-10 species Not Common 11 to 50 Species E E 3 Very common 872 Attachment 4 Dry Season Report 873 L*g MADRON E ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING 8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 248 Citrus Heights, CA 95610 www.madroneeco.com (916) 822-3230 1 November 2022 Mr. Jeff Olberding Olberding Environmental, Inc. 193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Subject: Anderson and Chen (Grand View Development Project) 2022 Dry Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey, Alameda County, California Dear Mr. Olberding: At the request of Olberding Environmental, Inc. (Olberding), Madrone Ecological Consulting, Inc. (Madrone) analyzed soil samples from the approximately 190-acre Anderson and Chen properties, also known as the Grand View Development Project (Study Area) within Alameda County, California as part of a dry season study for federally -listed large branchiopod species. The Study Area is located in the northeast corner of the interchange of Interstate 1-580 and Fallon Road in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The Study Area is within portions of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 1 East of the "Livermore, California" 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Quadrangle (Figures 1 and 2). Authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Permit branch to conduct the sampling was received on 24 May 2022 via email (Attachment A). The purpose of the investigation was to determine the presence of eggs of large branchiopod species (fairy shrimp or tadpole shrimp) listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (e.g., vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta (ynchi], conservancy fairy shrimp [Branchinecta conservatio], longhorn fairy shrimp [Branchinecta longiantenna], and vernal pool tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardi]). The soils were collected and analyzed under the authority of USFWS Recovery Permit No. TE-85084C (Dustin Brown). Methods Soil samples from 16 features were collected on 1 June 2022 by Madrone senior biologist Dustin Brown. Depressional features that appeared to pond water An-P1, An-SW1, An-SW2, An-SW3, An-SW4, An-SW6, An-SW7, An-SW8, An-SW9, An-SW10, Ch-SW1, Ch-SW2, Ch- SW3, Ch-SW4, and Ch-SW5 were sampled (Figure 3). Aquatic features including drainages (Ch-OW1, 2, 3, and 4), perennial or semi -perennial ponds (Ch-P1) and marshes (Ch-EW1), or swales (Ch-WS1, An-WS1, An-WS2, and An-WS3) and wetlands (Ch-SW6 and An-SW-5) that were located on a gradient and do not pond water were not sampled. After collection the soil samples were transported to the Madrone lab and were processed following methods outlined in the Guidelines (USFWS 2017). In Madrone's laboratory, a brine solution was prepared by mixing table salt (NaCI) with 874 lukewarm tap water in a large container. The soil material collected from each aquatic feature was placed into the brine solution, and worked by hand to break down soil structure. The organic material rising to the top of the brine solution was poured onto a 710-micron-diameter pore -size sieve stacked atop a 150- micron-diameter pore -size sieve. The soil material was processed through the top sieve by flushing it with lukewarm tap water while gently rubbing it with a soft -bristle brush. The organic material retained from the 150-micron-diameter pore -size sieve was then rinsed gently with lukewarm tap water, and then removed and thinly distributed into plastic Petri dishes. All sieved fractions were microscopically inspected for the presence of large branchiopod eggs. Evidence of other aquatic invertebrates encountered was also noted on the lab data sheet. Results Madrone processed soil samples from a total of 16 habitat features. Eggs from the genus Branchinecta were identified in a total of two features including Ch. SW-2 (22 eggs) and CH. SW-3 (48 eggs). Other invertebrate taxa observed in the soil samples included micro-Turbellaria, Cladocera, Ostracoda, nematoda, hydracarina, and Collembola. A data sheet is attached as Attachment B. There are several species within the genus Branchinecta that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area including common and federally -listed species. It is unreliable to identify Branchinecta eggs to species by visually inspecting their eggs under a microscope. The soil samples were provided to Brent Helm (TE-795930) at Helm Biological Consulting to conduct culturing and rearing of the eggs and to identify the species of Branchinecta present. The culturing of the eggs resulted in the identification of the common (non -special status) versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) in both features. See Attachment C for a copy of the report from Helm Biological Consulting. Discussion No federally -listed vernal pool branchiopods were observed within the Study Area during the 2022 dry season sampling. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (916) 822-3230, or at dbrown@madroneeco.com Dustin Brown Senior Biologist References: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Sacramento, California. Revised November 13, 2017. Figures: Figure 1. Regional Map Figure 2. Project Location Figure 3. Survey Area Map Attachments: Attachment A — Attachment B — Attachment C — Attachment D — Dry Season Sampling Approval Dry Season Lab Data Sheet Cyst Culturing Memo from Helm Biological Consulting Representative Site Photographs 875 Figures Figure 1. Regional Map Figure 2. Project Location Figure 3. Survey Area Map 876 v q•tte ,1., a- p?o Diamond Mines "RI Regional ParA -a Plea —Hit �sd s`oyRd Clayton �; t Dill ti$ ; y _ ,rr(I: reak R[l i St`' so a m Brentwood n .vnI clr,n !l ft'b V. Chestnuts r m in I. c.;lfour Rd '- Fa r } rr 'Walnut f n ya(l]:rr.•:e; :fre r Creek �, y P•a; s� la Cr .. Marsh Creek Rd Mt Diablo tls." State Park - °.Qa Byron Round VaFley S Regonal Park tone /„'4 81.1., Rd D anvi Las Frampas Regional Wilderness `t . sane A coat' Joni on � r. is Ki>r�v rgur C Y4p • AS and Rd f Rd 0°4i a r9�e li C,ani� r 1 .° u • x Ai Castro ofplt�14 p J n �ubirn Blvd `lfand .... e� -OP Q o 5 Is x r: i.lrid it °" 1 Hayward �% "'9cy ,ggniel alvd a' a "' PJeasatiton vi -v �r • Ord Blve eR , ',, q v Diabio L:r Rd Mwq an Ter r to ry Regional Mew re* Gann Regional v a a t4hippie Rd.5 Union epa %tp: o� City 7e Ce �S� Rd °Plateau a+ Fremont Mission Peak Rec anal Park 1.75 3.5 7 Scale: 1:250,000 1 inch = 4 miles 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 a :r Y Surtol Region.-1 W rdeme vrr mt•; !rk vase° Htlis Vasco v ave Byron rfamal Pb0Fs A! torn on t p}s s a :1' e a 0 East Ave Livermore rr LeI Ydla Regional Park * Property Location Figure 1: Regional Map Anderson and Chen Alameda County, CA 877 GRAND VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA n A M i A Welk Ip' IlSanta Rita _ -- -mil Rehab]ktatron Center r) Annex Arroyo S A N T A D 0 R it 31;5 !e :'0 • a r • yo Il 0 4e, —I Property Boundary (187.5 acres) USGS 24k Topo Map Boundaries The Project Site is located within the Livermore, CA USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map. The site occurs within the southwest 1/4 of Section 35 of Township 2 South and Range 1 East, as well as unsectioned portions of Township 2 South and Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Mt. Diablo Base & Meridian. Center Coordinates (NAD83) for Study Area: Latitude 37.705232, Longitude -121.844179 0 1,000 2,000 Feet A Data Source: USGS The National Map 2021; ESRI USA Boundaries; Public Land Survey System Prepared by: HELM Date: 10/21/2022 Figure 2. Project Location 878 3� f ^ i 5656Ed 1 F 51 0 55F. �� =l ' I I r c:4 as L O a) d d To LL Q C U Q. C .) p0'C o E i lC C 'a Q ( c m w co J Map Revision Date: 11/11/2021 879 Attachments Attachment A. Dry Season Sampling Approval Attachment B. Dry -Season Lab Data Sheet Attachment C. Cyst Culturing Memo from Helm Biological Consulting Attachment C. Representative Site Photographs 880 Attachment A Dry Season Sampling Approval 881 Dustin Brown From: Kong, Lauren M <lauren_kong@fws.gov> on behalf of SFWO Permits, FW8 <FW8 _SFWO_Permits@fws.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:51 PM To: Dustin Brown Cc: Nguyen, My Q; Olah, Ryan Subject: Survey Notification Approval, dry season surveys, VpB, Chen -Anderson properties, TE-85084C Dustin Brown, By this email message, you are authorized to conduct dry season sampling (and processing) for vernal pool branchiopods, as specified in your May 20, 2022 email request, per the conditions of your recovery permit (TE- 85084C). Surveys will be conducted at the Chen -Anderson properties in Alameda County, CA. Surveys may be conducted within all wetlands identified on -site that might provide suitable habitat. Suitable habitat not previously identified on the project site may also be sampled under this authorization. Please remember to carry a copy of your permit while doing the work and to follow the terms and conditions therein. This authorization does not include access to the property which must be arranged with the landowner or manager. In your report(s), please include which activities were authorized, the names of all persons involved in each activity, their recovery permit numbers, if applicable, and the date of this authorization, to help ensure that we correctly record the fulfillment of the reporting requirement under this authorization. Please let us know if the activities are not performed as authorized, or if they are done by a different permittee under a separate authorization. Reports should include a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map (1:24,000 scale) depicting the location of the project site, survey area, and location(s) of species in as precise a manner as possible. We may also request spatial data and metadata. Please send electronic copies of the report(s) to FW8_SFWO_Permits@fws.gov and the Coast Bay Division Supervisor, Ryan Olah (ryan_olah@fws.gov). Thank you, Lauren 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit Team Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The SFWO is transitioning to a consolidated mailbox (this one!) for all communications regarding 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits in our jurisdiction. Please send survey notifications, reports, and permit inquiries (aka anything and everything permit -related) to this email address: FW8_SFWO_Permits@fws.gov. 1 882 Attachment B Dry -Season Lab Data Sheet 883 Dry Season Lab Data Sheet Biologist information Name of Person(s) Who Conducted the Fo`lcw nc Tasks and Permit Number(s): Soil Collection Conducted By: DooN," �wrJ1 Soil Processing Conducted By: mum,. s l oVS'�in cDWl\ Soil Analysis/Cysts ID Conducted By: bustle% itDftirn fi" .4 e4 Co cry to cn 47 0. . o SJ) 'o gl 4- E 3 U a Invertbrates Present (X) 4 fn is U z Soil Collection Date: 6 fi {O,z_ m 11 Humber of Large B ancfiiopod Eggs I w 1 Project Information "y� L' 9 .d L tn I Q c Cr C O n- 1 �I al J i) Copepodsm LvelCystaC �^ 7 C- a' m USFLNS Project Number County: Ostrecods LivelCyatsf Carapaces / ! `y X X X XC ,'ti Cladacere ephiPPR3 NA X% /� X. X X Mlcro-Turbellaria Cysts X/ J )< X X X X, .X X, X. Insect Exo- Skscisti s X • > X �/ h X �[ X ],+ F �[ ` C >ti j� ` y 2 Gam' '--.D j 884 I � p Attachment C Cyst Culturing Memo from Helm Biological 885 CYST CULTURING FOR THE DETECTION OF FEDERALLY -LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPODS AT THE GRAND VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date & Time: Wed. Jun 01.2022. 10:10:33 PDT Position: +037.702882° /-121.846408° (±11.bft) Altitude: 355ft (±9.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 291° N69W 5173mils True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -16.8° Horizon Angle; -00.1 ° Zoo : L;oG�: Prepared for: OLBERDING -ENVIRONMENTAL- OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 165 Folsom, CA, 95630 Contact: Jeff Olberding (916)985-1188 Prepared by: &HELM '8IP9Lt9e fC.41 CPJ�I,S-tlLTIN, arbi,r,� 1600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA95861 October 2022 HELM BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4600 Karchner Road Sheridan, CA 95681 Contact: Dr. Brent Helm (530) 633-0220 886 ,..., Ii. HELM Tarsr'3IOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 CYST CULTURING FOR THE DETECTION OF FEDERALLY -LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPODS AT THE GRAND VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Helm Biological Consulting (HBC), a division of Tansley Team, Inc., was contracted by Olberding Environmental, Inc., to culture cysts (hatch cysts and rear hatchlings to maturity for positive identification of species) belonging to the genus Branchinecta obtained from the soils collected from two dry seasonally -inundated depressions (seasonal wetlands SW2 and SW3) at the Grand View Development Project (hereafter "Project") for the presence of the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi]). The Project is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 580 (I-580) and Fallon Road, on the eastern outskirts of the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California (Figure 1). Additionally, the Project is located in the southwest 1/4 of Section 35 of Township 2 South and Range 1 East, as well as unsectioned portions of Township 2 South and Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Mt. Diablo Base & Meridian. (Figure 2). The Project's approximate center coordinates (North American Datum of 1983 [NAD83]) are: 37.705232°,-121.844179°. Background Dustin Brown from Madrone Ecological Consulting conducted wet -season and dry -season sampling at the Project. Cyst belonging to the genus Branchinecta were observed in soils collected from two seasonal wetlands (SW2 and SW3) onsite (Figure 3). Soils containing 22 Branchinecta cysts from SW2 and 48 Branchinecta cysts from SW3 were delivered to HBC on June 27, 2022 by Mr. Brown. The remainder of this report discusses the methods and results of cyst culturing to determine the species of Branchinecta sp. occurring within soils collected from SW2 and SW3 at the Project. Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 1 887 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 "I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represents my work." Brent P. Helm Signature (TE-795930-10.2) Date 10-19-2022 Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 2 888 F'Iea.arit �yd 3NaVRd FillI otie ; St`' G ' Jrrl 'i 'n "ivy`' walnut Creek ton. i'4 8 0), Rd Las Frampas Regional Wilderness Castro hfand Valley `A44P rr : lar;ri Hayward Ord F31ve Claymn Mt Diablo State Park Diablo *MG Rd San won rgur C YWr4, PR mubirn Blvd Diamond Mines Rez}IQnal ParA -a de n t ,rrr} ; leak Rd i a _ Brentwood "' V. Chest u t S r is.InQ c.;lfour Rd '- Farr,}rr et F- • n•li O 4/�S ^y� L•ii-; h Cr - • Marsh Crack Rd °,pa Byron MwganTerrtory Regional Prow a • HiYyr and Rd 4 G ° Gann r �4' Reg tonal ▪ ' \\Pt a. y tihippleRd•{r - Union ' ° City . aryR .$1P1r �4"/Pd t?kj r t, y . a o te Pla._.i 47 4 :•t_• Fidl: Park Fremont Newark,'c. Rd hdrfFsr 1.75 3.5 7 Scale: 1:250,000 1 inch = 4 miles i 5 � x •�° Blvd Valk Jeasatiton —v„ a Mission Peak Revrinal Park 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 SL • Surlol 9nn.-1 W lde me vrr int.; rk Fbo u nd V aF le ). Ilsgr nal Park HLivi Vasco kirk Vasco v ave Byron rfamal Pbois A! torn on t patscia :1' n 0 Ea0Av. 4 Livermore rr Leal v i Region al Park * Property Location Figure 1: Regional Map Chen Property Alameda County, CA 889 GRAND VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA n A M i A Welk Ip' IlSanta Rita _ -- -mil Rehab]ktatron Center r) Annex Arroyo S A N T A D 0 R it 31;5 !e :'0 • a r • yo Il 0 4e, —I Property Boundary (187.5 acres) USGS 24k Topo Map Boundaries The Project Site is located within the Livermore, CA USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map. The site occurs within the southwest 1/4 of Section 35 of Township 2 South and Range 1 East, as well as unsectioned portions of Township 2 South and Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Mt. Diablo Base & Meridian. Center Coordinates (NAD83) for Study Area: Latitude 37.705232, Longitude -121.844179 0 1,000 2,000 Feet A Data Source: USGS The National Map 2021; ESRI USA Boundaries; Public Land Survey System Prepared by: HELM Date: 10/21/2022 Figure 2. Project Location 890 co O N 0 z Map Revision Date: 11/11/2021 z aZ co 7 o" 891 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 METHODS Methods followed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS 2017) Survey Guidelines for Listed Large Branchiopods for dry -season sampling and consisted of first soil collection, second soil processing and analysis, and last cyst culturing as described below. SOIL COLLECTION, PROCESSING, AND ANALYSIS Dry soils were collected on June 1, 2022 by Dustin Brown of Madrone Ecological Consulting as authorized by USFWS (Appendix A) under permit number TE-85084C-0 of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and its implementing regulations. The soils were processes and analyzed and determined that cysts belonging to the genus Branchinecta occurred in two of the seasonal inundated wetlands (SW2 and SW3) sampled using dry -season techniques. Because there are several species within the genus Branchinecta that could occur or are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project, Branchinecta cysts observed within the soils, were delivered to HBC for culturing to determine species as described below. CYST CULTURING Petri dishes containing soils with Branchinecta cysts were placed into individual 6-quart sized plastic containers. The soils were saturated with 50° F well water (non -chlorinated) and allowed to dry. This saturation and drying process was repeated three times. The soils were then inundated completely with 50° F well water. The containers holding the inundated soils were inserted into an environmental chamber. The environmental chamber controls were set to mimic the winter light, humidity, and temperature fluctuations of the Project's vicinity. The contents of the containers were monitored daily for fairy shrimp hatchlings (instars). If no hatchlings were observed after ten (10) days, the containers were removed from the environmental chamber and the soils were allowed to completely dry before reinitiating the hatching process described above. To expedite the culturing process, all emerging instars were removed from their original containers and placed into a separate container. The original container was dried and the culturing process was repeated. This technique allows multiple generations of instars to continue to grow to maturity simultaneously. A total of three hatching attempts were performed on each soil sample. Fairy shrimp hatchlings were feed ground fish food and reared in the environmental chamber until they were mature enough to be identified using dichotomous keys and diagrams from "Fairy Shrimps of California's Puddles, Pools, and Playas" (Eriksen and Belk 1999), two more recent Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 6 892 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Di i,ion 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 publications concerning the identification of San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and versatile fairy shrimp (B. lindahli) (Simovich et al 2013; Patel et al. 2018), and compared to Dr. Helm's large branchiopod reference collection. Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 7 893 ., 's,e,,,,,,. HELM Tansley Team BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Ddvu,aa 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 RESULTS CYST CULTURING The common non -special status versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) was hatched from soils containing Branchinecta cysts from SW2 and SW3 (Table 1). Additional soils were collected from SW2 by Dustin Brown on August 10, 2022 after the first two culturing attempts failed to hatch the original 22 Branchinecta cysts. Over 150 Branchinecta cyst were viewed in the processed soil from SW2 from the second collection. Table 1. Results of Cyst Culturing from Soils collected from the Grand View Project Basin # Hatching Round # Total 1 2 3 # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female SW2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 SW3 0 0 0 6 2 2 5 1 1 11 3 3 Total 0 0 0 6 2 2 7 1 0 13 3 5 Note: BRsp = Immature Branchinecta sp., BRLI = Versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta I ndahli ) Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 894 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Di i,ion 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 LITERATURE CITED Belk, D. 1989. Identification of species in the Conchostraca genus Eulimnadia by egg shell morphology. Journal of Crustacean Biology. 9(1): 115-125. Brendock, L., D. C. Rogers, J. Olesen, S. Weeks, and W. R. Hoch. 2008. Global diversity of large branchiopods (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia. 595: 167- 176. Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California's puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA. 196 pp. Gilchrist, B. M. 1978. Scanning electron microscope studies of the egg shell in some Anostraca (Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Cell Tiss. Res. 193: 337-351. Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124- 139 in Witham, C. W., E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff. (eds.). Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems —proceeding from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 285 pp. Helm, B. P. 1999. Feeding ecology of Linderiella occidentalis (Dodds) (Crustacea: Anostraca). Doctoral thesis. University of California, Davis. 158 pp. Helm, B. P., and J. E. Vollmar. 2002. Vernal pool large brachiopods. Pages 151-190 in John E. Vollmar (ed.). Wildlife and rare plant ecology of eastern Merced County's vernal pool grasslands. Sentinel Printers, Inc. CA. 446 pp. Helm, B., and M. Noyes. 2016. California large branchiopod occurrences: A comparison of method detection rates. Pages 31-56. In: Robert Schlising (ed.). Vernal Pools in changing landscapes: from Shasta to Baja —proceeding from a 2014 conference. AquaAlliance, Chico, California. 291 pp. Hill, R. E., and W. D. Shepard. 1998. Observation on the identification of California anostracan cysts. Hydrobiologia 359: 113-123. Mura, G. 1991. SEM morphology of resting eggs in the species of the genus Branchinecta from North America. J. Crust. Biol. 11: 432-436. Patel, K.V., Simovich, M.A., Graige, N.S. and Bohonak, A.J., 2018. A clash of characters: The effect of variation on a morphological hybrid index for an endangered California fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Fugate, 1993)(Crustacea: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 38(3), pp.349-353. Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 895 ,..., Ii. HELM Tarsr' BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 Rabet, N. 2010. Revision of the egg morphology of Eulimnadia (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Spinicaudata). Zoosystema 32 (3): 373-391. Simovich, M.A., Davis, K.B. and Bohonak, A.J., 2013. Landscape homogenization threatens the genetic integrity of the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Branchiopoda: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 33(5), pp.730-740. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Survey guidelines for the listed large branchiopods. 24 pp. Dated: 31 May 2015 (Revised November 13, 2017). Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 896 -4/0„ HELM ., iTans4 Team13IOLOGICAGL CONSULTING Ddvu,aa 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 APPENDIX A. USFWS AUTHORIZATION Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 897 Dustin Brown From: Kong, Lauren M <lauren_kong@fws.gov> on behalf of SFWO Permits, FW8 <FW8 _SFWO_Permits@fws.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:51 PM To: Dustin Brown Cc: Nguyen, My Q; Olah, Ryan Subject: Survey Notification Approval, dry season surveys, VpB, Chen -Anderson properties, TE-85084C Dustin Brown, By this email message, you are authorized to conduct dry season sampling (and processing) for vernal pool branchiopods, as specified in your May 20, 2022 email request, per the conditions of your recovery permit (TE- 85084C). Surveys will be conducted at the Chen -Anderson properties in Alameda County, CA. Surveys may be conducted within all wetlands identified on -site that might provide suitable habitat. Suitable habitat not previously identified on the project site may also be sampled under this authorization. Please remember to carry a copy of your permit while doing the work and to follow the terms and conditions therein. This authorization does not include access to the property which must be arranged with the landowner or manager. In your report(s), please include which activities were authorized, the names of all persons involved in each activity, their recovery permit numbers, if applicable, and the date of this authorization, to help ensure that we correctly record the fulfillment of the reporting requirement under this authorization. Please let us know if the activities are not performed as authorized, or if they are done by a different permittee under a separate authorization. Reports should include a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map (1:24,000 scale) depicting the location of the project site, survey area, and location(s) of species in as precise a manner as possible. We may also request spatial data and metadata. Please send electronic copies of the report(s) to FW8_SFWO_Permits@fws.gov and the Coast Bay Division Supervisor, Ryan Olah (ryan_olah@fws.gov). Thank you, Lauren 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit Team Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The SFWO is transitioning to a consolidated mailbox (this one!) for all communications regarding 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits in our jurisdiction. Please send survey notifications, reports, and permit inquiries (aka anything and everything permit -related) to this email address: FW8_SFWO_Permits@fws.gov. 1 898 Attachment D Representative Site Photos 899 Date & Time: Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 10:10:33 PDT Position: +037.702882' /-121.846408' (±11.6ft) Altitude: 355ft (±9.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 291 ° N69W 5173mi1s True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -16.8° Horizon Angle: -00.1° Z.00m:r0.5X9 Photograph of Ch-SW3 facing west. Branchinecta lindahli eggs identified within this feature Date & Time: Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 10:34:41 PDT Position: +037.705650° /-121.850222' (±15.0ft) Altitude: 364ft (±11.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: '154° e io n, e qgr . ;n /tn,l4 . Photograph of Ch-SW1 facing southeast from the northern end of the feature. Anderson and Chen Representative Site Photographs 900 Date & Time: Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 09:48:52 PDT Position: +037.701868' /-121.845431 ° (±103.0ft) Altitude: 357ft (±26.2ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 244° S64W 4338mi1s True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -13.3° Horizon Angle: +00.2° Zoom: 0.5X 1�. 4 Photograph of Ch-SW4 facing west Date & Time: Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 10:22:16 PDT Position: +037.703499' /-121.848708' (±15.0ft) Altitude: 364ft (±11.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 296° N64W 5262mils True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -02.6° Horizon Angle: +00.9° Zoom: 0.5X Facing northwest at Ch-P1 and Ch-EW1. Features are not suitable habitat and were not sampled. Anderson and Chen Representative Site Photographs 901 Date & Time: Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 12:02:35 PDT Position: +037.706282' /-121.841517° (±15.6ft) Altitude: 426ft (±11.0ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 325° N35W 5778mi1s True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -16.5° Horizon Angle: +00.0 Zoom: 0.5X Facing northwest at Ch-SW6 and Ch-WS1. Features are not suitable habitat and were not sampled. Date & Time: Wed, Jun 01, 2022, 11:39:17 PDT Position: +037.708360° /-121.839669° (±15.0ft) Altitude: 421ft (±11.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 184° SO4W 3271 mils True (+12°) Elevation Angle: -09.0° Horizon Angle: -00.8° Zoom: 0.5X Photograph of An-P1 facing south Anderson and Chen Representative Site Photographs 902 kate &Time: Wed, Jun 01. 2022. 11:12:28 PDT osition: +037.704742' /-121.839243° (±15.0ft) Altitude: 414ft (±11.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing; 15.6°,524E 2773. mils.True (+12°) ° Tilg CFAs. ij l Photograph of An-SW5 facing south. This feature does not contain suitable habitat for vernal pool branchiopods and was not sampled. Date &Time: Wed, Jun 01. 2022. 11:57:58 PDT Position: +037.707194° /-121.840635° (±11.6ft) Altitude: 431 ft (±9.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 067° N67E 1191 mils True (±12°1 Elevation Angle: -15.0° Lorizon Angle: +00.8° �nom:0_5X Photograph of An-SW7 facing east Anderson and Chen Representative Site Photographs 903 Date & Time: Wed, Jun 01. 2022. 10:10:42 PDT Position: +037.702909° /-121.846441 ° (±15.0ft) Altitude: 355ft (±11.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 027° N27E 0480miks True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -11.3° Horizon Angle: -00.2° Zoom: 0.5X Photograph facing northeast from Ch-SW-3 Date &Time: Wed. Jun 01. 2022. 12:03:01 PDT Position: +037.706101 ° /-121.841510° (±15.5ft) Altitude: 429ft (±11.1 ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 258° S78W 4587mi1s True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -17.1° Horizon Angle: +00.4° .Zoom:: 0. X Photograph facing west from just south of An-SW-6 Anderson and Chen Representative Site Photographs 904 Attachment 5 Cyst Culturing Report 905 CYST CULTURING FOR THE DETECTION OF FEDERALLY -LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPODS AT THE GRAND VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date & Time: Wed. Jun 01.2022. 10:10:33 PDT Position: +037.702882° /-121.846408° (±11.bft) Altitude: 355ft (±9.8ft) Datum: WGS-84 Azimuth/Bearing: 291° N69W 5173mils True (±12°) Elevation Angle: -16.8° Horizon Angle; -00.1 ° Zoo . L;oG�: Prepared for: OLBERDING -ENVIRONMENTAL- OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 165 Folsom, CA, 95630 Contact: Jeff Olberding (916)985-1188 Prepared by: &HELM '8IP9Lt9e fC.41 CPJ�I,S-tlLTIN, arbi,r,� 1600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA95861 October 2022 HELM BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4600 Karchner Road Sheridan, CA 95681 Contact: Dr. Brent Helm (530) 633-0220 906 ,..., Ii. HELM Tarsr'3IOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 CYST CULTURING FOR THE DETECTION OF FEDERALLY -LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPODS AT THE GRAND VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Helm Biological Consulting (HBC), a division of Tansley Team, Inc., was contracted by Olberding Environmental, Inc., to culture cysts (hatch cysts and rear hatchlings to maturity for positive identification of species) belonging to the genus Branchinecta obtained from the soils collected from two dry seasonally -inundated depressions (seasonal wetlands SW2 and SW3) at the Grand View Development Project (hereafter "Project") for the presence of the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi]). The Project is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Interstate 580 (I-580) and Fallon Road, on the eastern outskirts of the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California (Figure 1). Additionally, the Project is located in the southwest 1/4 of Section 35 of Township 2 South and Range 1 East, as well as unsectioned portions of Township 2 South and Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Mt. Diablo Base & Meridian. (Figure 2). The Project's approximate center coordinates (North American Datum of 1983 [NAD83]) are: 37.705232°,-121.844179°. Background Dustin Brown from Madrone Ecological Consulting conducted wet -season and dry -season sampling at the Project. Cyst belonging to the genus Branchinecta were observed in soils collected from two seasonal wetlands (SW2 and SW3) onsite (Figure 3). Soils containing 22 Branchinecta cysts from SW2 and 48 Branchinecta cysts from SW3 were delivered to HBC on June 27, 2022 by Mr. Brown. The remainder of this report discusses the methods and results of cyst culturing to determine the species of Branchinecta sp. occurring within soils collected from SW2 and SW3 at the Project. Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 1 907 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 "I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represents my work." Brent P. Helm Signature (TE-795930-10.2) Date 10-19-2022 Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 2 908 F'Iea.arit �yd 3NaVRd FillI otie ; St`' G ' Jrrl 'i 'n "ivy`' walnut Creek ton. i'4 8 0), Rd Las Frampas Regional Wilderness Castro hfand Valley `A44P rr : lar;ri Hayward Ord F31ve Claymn Mt Diablo State Park Diablo *MG Rd San won rgur C YWr4, PR mubirn Blvd Diamond Mines Rez}IQnal ParA -a de n t ,rrr} ; leak Rd i a _ Brentwood "' V. Chest u t S r is.InQ c.;lfour Rd '- Farr,}rr et F- • n•li O 4/�S ^y� L•ii-; h Cr - • Marsh Crack Rd °,pa Byron MwganTerrtory Regional Prow a • HiYyr and Rd 4 G ° Gann r �4' Reg tonal ▪ ' \\Pt a. y tihippleRd•{r - Union ' ° City . aryR .$1P1r �4"/Pd t?kj r t, y . a o te Pla._.i 47 4 :•t_• Fidl: Park Fremont Newark,'c. Rd hdrfFsr 1.75 3.5 7 Scale: 1:250,000 1 inch = 4 miles i 5 � x •�° Blvd Valk Jeasatiton —v„ a Mission Peak Revrinal Park 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 SL • Surlol 9nn.-1 W lde me vrr int.; rk Fbo u nd V aF le ). Ilsgr nal Park HLivi Vasco kirk Vasco v ave Byron rfamal Pbois A! torn on t patscia :1' n 0 Ea0Av. 4 Livermore rr Leal v i Region al Park * Property Location Figure 1: Regional Map Chen Property Alameda County, CA 909 GRAND VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA n A M i A Welk Ip' IlSanta Rita _ -- -mil Rehab]ktatron Center r) Annex Arroyo S A N T A D 0 R it 31;5 !e :'0 • a r • yo Il 0 4e, —I Property Boundary (187.5 acres) USGS 24k Topo Map Boundaries The Project Site is located within the Livermore, CA USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map. The site occurs within the southwest 1/4 of Section 35 of Township 2 South and Range 1 East, as well as unsectioned portions of Township 2 South and Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Mt. Diablo Base & Meridian. Center Coordinates (NAD83) for Study Area: Latitude 37.705232, Longitude -121.844179 0 1,000 2,000 Feet A Data Source: USGS The National Map 2021; ESRI USA Boundaries; Public Land Survey System Prepared by: HELM Date: 10/21/2022 Figure 2. Project Location 910 co O N 0 z Map Revision Date: 11/11/2021 z aZ co 7 o" 911 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 METHODS Methods followed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS 2017) Survey Guidelines for Listed Large Branchiopods for dry -season sampling and consisted of first soil collection, second soil processing and analysis, and last cyst culturing as described below. SOIL COLLECTION, PROCESSING, AND ANALYSIS Dry soils were collected on June 1, 2022 by Dustin Brown of Madrone Ecological Consulting as authorized by USFWS (Appendix A) under permit number TE-85084C-0 of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and its implementing regulations. The soils were processes and analyzed and determined that cysts belonging to the genus Branchinecta occurred in two of the seasonal inundated wetlands (SW2 and SW3) sampled using dry -season techniques. Because there are several species within the genus Branchinecta that could occur or are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project, Branchinecta cysts observed within the soils, were delivered to HBC for culturing to determine species as described below. CYST CULTURING Petri dishes containing soils with Branchinecta cysts were placed into individual 6-quart sized plastic containers. The soils were saturated with 50° F well water (non -chlorinated) and allowed to dry. This saturation and drying process was repeated three times. The soils were then inundated completely with 50° F well water. The containers holding the inundated soils were inserted into an environmental chamber. The environmental chamber controls were set to mimic the winter light, humidity, and temperature fluctuations of the Project's vicinity. The contents of the containers were monitored daily for fairy shrimp hatchlings (instars). If no hatchlings were observed after ten (10) days, the containers were removed from the environmental chamber and the soils were allowed to completely dry before reinitiating the hatching process described above. To expedite the culturing process, all emerging instars were removed from their original containers and placed into a separate container. The original container was dried and the culturing process was repeated. This technique allows multiple generations of instars to continue to grow to maturity simultaneously. A total of three hatching attempts were performed on each soil sample. Fairy shrimp hatchlings were feed ground fish food and reared in the environmental chamber until they were mature enough to be identified using dichotomous keys and diagrams from "Fairy Shrimps of California's Puddles, Pools, and Playas" (Eriksen and Belk 1999), two more recent Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 6 912 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Di i,ion 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 publications concerning the identification of San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and versatile fairy shrimp (B. lindahli) (Simovich et al 2013; Patel et al. 2018), and compared to Dr. Helm's large branchiopod reference collection. Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 7 913 ., 's,e,,,,,,. HELM Tansley Team BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Ddvu,aa 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 RESULTS CYST CULTURING The common non -special status versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) was hatched from soils containing Branchinecta cysts from SW2 and SW3 (Table 1). Additional soils were collected from SW2 by Dustin Brown on August 10, 2022 after the first two culturing attempts failed to hatch the original 22 Branchinecta cysts. Over 150 Branchinecta cyst were viewed in the processed soil from SW2 from the second collection. Table 1. Results of Cyst Culturing from Soils collected from the Grand View Project Basin # Hatching Round # Total 1 2 3 # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI # of BRsp Hatched # of Identified BRLI Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female SW2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 SW3 0 0 0 6 2 2 5 1 1 11 3 3 Total 0 0 0 6 2 2 7 1 0 13 3 5 Note: BRsp = Immature Branchinecta sp., BRLI = Versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta I ndahli ) Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 914 ,..., Iie„. HELM Tars4 BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Di i,ion 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 LITERATURE CITED Belk, D. 1989. Identification of species in the Conchostraca genus Eulimnadia by egg shell morphology. Journal of Crustacean Biology. 9(1): 115-125. Brendock, L., D. C. Rogers, J. Olesen, S. Weeks, and W. R. Hoch. 2008. Global diversity of large branchiopods (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia. 595: 167- 176. Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California's puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA. 196 pp. Gilchrist, B. M. 1978. Scanning electron microscope studies of the egg shell in some Anostraca (Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Cell Tiss. Res. 193: 337-351. Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124- 139 in Witham, C. W., E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff. (eds.). Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems —proceeding from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 285 pp. Helm, B. P. 1999. Feeding ecology of Linderiella occidentalis (Dodds) (Crustacea: Anostraca). Doctoral thesis. University of California, Davis. 158 pp. Helm, B. P., and J. E. Vollmar. 2002. Vernal pool large brachiopods. Pages 151-190 in John E. Vollmar (ed.). Wildlife and rare plant ecology of eastern Merced County's vernal pool grasslands. Sentinel Printers, Inc. CA. 446 pp. Helm, B., and M. Noyes. 2016. California large branchiopod occurrences: A comparison of method detection rates. Pages 31-56. In: Robert Schlising (ed.). Vernal Pools in changing landscapes: from Shasta to Baja —proceeding from a 2014 conference. AquaAlliance, Chico, California. 291 pp. Hill, R. E., and W. D. Shepard. 1998. Observation on the identification of California anostracan cysts. Hydrobiologia 359: 113-123. Mura, G. 1991. SEM morphology of resting eggs in the species of the genus Branchinecta from North America. J. Crust. Biol. 11: 432-436. Patel, K.V., Simovich, M.A., Graige, N.S. and Bohonak, A.J., 2018. A clash of characters: The effect of variation on a morphological hybrid index for an endangered California fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Fugate, 1993)(Crustacea: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 38(3), pp.349-353. Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 915 ,..., Ii. HELM Tarsr' BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 Rabet, N. 2010. Revision of the egg morphology of Eulimnadia (Crustacea, Branchiopoda, Spinicaudata). Zoosystema 32 (3): 373-391. Simovich, M.A., Davis, K.B. and Bohonak, A.J., 2013. Landscape homogenization threatens the genetic integrity of the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Branchiopoda: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology, 33(5), pp.730-740. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Survey guidelines for the listed large branchiopods. 24 pp. Dated: 31 May 2015 (Revised November 13, 2017). Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 916 -440 ,'_BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING ELM Tansley Team Division 4600 Karchner Rd, Sheridan, CA 95681 APPENDIX A. USFWS AUTHORIZATION Cyst Culturing of Branchinecta Cysts Ph: (530) 633-0220 Grand View Development Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 917 Dustin Brown From: Kong, Lauren M <lauren_kong@fws.gov> on behalf of SFWO Permits, FW8 <FW8 _SFWO_Permits@fws.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:51 PM To: Dustin Brown Cc: Nguyen, My Q; Olah, Ryan Subject: Survey Notification Approval, dry season surveys, VpB, Chen -Anderson properties, TE-85084C Dustin Brown, By this email message, you are authorized to conduct dry season sampling (and processing) for vernal pool branchiopods, as specified in your May 20, 2022 email request, per the conditions of your recovery permit (TE- 85084C). Surveys will be conducted at the Chen -Anderson properties in Alameda County, CA. Surveys may be conducted within all wetlands identified on -site that might provide suitable habitat. Suitable habitat not previously identified on the project site may also be sampled under this authorization. Please remember to carry a copy of your permit while doing the work and to follow the terms and conditions therein. This authorization does not include access to the property which must be arranged with the landowner or manager. In your report(s), please include which activities were authorized, the names of all persons involved in each activity, their recovery permit numbers, if applicable, and the date of this authorization, to help ensure that we correctly record the fulfillment of the reporting requirement under this authorization. Please let us know if the activities are not performed as authorized, or if they are done by a different permittee under a separate authorization. Reports should include a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map (1:24,000 scale) depicting the location of the project site, survey area, and location(s) of species in as precise a manner as possible. We may also request spatial data and metadata. Please send electronic copies of the report(s) to FW8_SFWO_Permits@fws.gov and the Coast Bay Division Supervisor, Ryan Olah (ryan_olah@fws.gov). Thank you, Lauren 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit Team Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The SFWO is transitioning to a consolidated mailbox (this one!) for all communications regarding 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits in our jurisdiction. Please send survey notifications, reports, and permit inquiries (aka anything and everything permit -related) to this email address: FW8_SFWO_Permits@fws.gov. 1 918 Attachment 6 2018 Non -protocol Level Wet Season Report 919 LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPOD WET SEASON SURVEY PRELIMINARY RESULTS REPORT FOR THE CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES CITY OF DUBLIN, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GH PACVEST, LLC. 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 Prepared by: OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Wetland Regulatory Consultants Contact: Jeff Olberding 193 Blue Ravine, Suite 165 Folsom, California 95630 Phone: (925) 866-2111 Fax: JUNE 2018 920 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 USFWS REFERENCE NUMBER 2018-TA-1783 1 2.0 OBJECTIVE 1 3.0 LOCATION 1 4.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 1 5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT 2 6.0 SURVEYED FEATURES 3 7.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3 8.0 REFERENCES 4 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Figures Attachment 2 Photo Documentation Attachment 3 Raw Data Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey i Olberding Environmental, Inc. Chen -Anderson Properties June 2018 921 1.0 USFWS REFERENCE NUMBER 2018-TA-1783 2.0 OBJECTIVE This report summarizes the results of non -protocol level wet season surveys for listed large branchiopods conducted within aquatic features on the Cypress Preserve during the 2017-18 wet season. Survey target species included federally endangered longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), and federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchii). Field surveys were conducted under the authorization of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Endangered/Threatened Species Take Permit No. TE-59890B-0. 3.0 LOCATION The Properties consist of approximately 135 acres and 50 acres respectively located just east of the intersection of Fallon Road and Croak Road, north of I-580, in Dublin, California. Attachment 1, Figure 1 depicts the regional location of the Properties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Attachment 1, Figure 2 illustrates the vicinity of the Properties in relationship to the City of Dublin. Attachment 1, Figure 3 identifies the locations of the Properties on a USGS Quadrangle base map. Attachment 1, Figure 4 shows an aerial of the Properties. Access to the Properties is provided from Interstate 580. From 580, take the El Charro/Fallon Road exit and make a left onto Fallon Road. Travel north for 0.5 miles then make a right onto Croak Road, the Chen Property will be found on the right. Continue on Croak Road for 0.2 miles, the Anderson Property will be on the right. 4.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS Upon receipt of USFWS approval to survey the site on April 9, 2018; three surveys were conducted approximately one month apart during April, May, and June of 2018. Field surveys were conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of our permit dated August 15, 2015 and as outlined in the May 31, 2015 Survey Guidelines for Large Listed Branchiopods (USFWS 2015). The surveyed features were sampled with a 5-foot long dip net with a 12 inch D-ring and 650 micron mesh. Sampling technique involved making a series of pulls by extending the net out and pulling it back in a sweeping motion. The net was examined for the presence of branchiopods and then cleaned of debris between pulls. The average effort ranged between five (5) to fifteen (15) pulls per survey feature depending on the size of the feature. In addition, the survey features Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 1 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Chen -Anderson Properties June 2018 922 will be visually scanned for the presence or branchiopods prior to each net pull. Air temperature, water temperature, and approximate maximum depth of ponding was measured and recorded during each sampling session for each sampled feature. Abundance categories were assigned in an attempt to quantify species concentration within a given feature; as follows: • Low (L) indicates less than one (1) individual per net pull, • Medium (M) indicates one (1) to four (4) individuals per net pull, and • High (H) indicates five (5) or greater individuals per net pull. Any surface feature that was inundated with 3 centimeters or more of water at the time of the individual survey was subject to sampling. Due to the high likelihood of encountering a California tiger salamander and/or California red - legged frog, which are both federally listed species; Olberding Environmental Biologist Lisa Henderson was included within the field survey events as she holds a USFWS 10(a)1(a) permit to cover those species. 5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT A majority of both Properties support California non-native annual grassland habitat. Plant species diversity is low, primarily due to grazing pressure. Dominant plant species include a mixture of annual grasses as well as forbs that are common to locally abundant at various times of the year. On the Anderson Property, an abandoned quarry pit in the north portion of the site supports a large isolated seasonal wetland and freshwater marsh bordered by a small band of riparian woodland. Two small, isolated seasonal wetlands are found in the southwestern portion of the Property. On the Chen Property, a small section of riparian woodland habitat occurs in the northwestern corner of the Property. Four ephemeral drainages occur within the valleys among the steep grass covered hillsides and an additional drainage flows through the riparian habitat. Three wetland features were observed on the Property, with the largest wetland located along the western portion of the Property. Water exits a culvert just outside the boundary of the Property and discharges onto the Property creating a large wetland across the southwestern portion of the Property. Two other wetland areas exist, one in the southeastern corner of the Property and the other in the northeastern corner at the top of one of the drainage features. A line of ornamental trees was observed along the western and southwestern corner just outside of the Property. The Properties are slated for commercial and residential development over a portion of both. The Anderson Property development will consist of 41.4 acres of medium to high -density residential apartment units and commercial development to include retail and office uses. It will also Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 2 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Chen -Anderson Properties June 2018 923 include an 8.3-acre internal open space area that will not be altered during construction. The Chen Property will consist of 72.1 acres of commercial development. The remaining 78 acres of the Chen Property will be preserved as open space. 6.0 SURVEYED FEATURES A total of 8 features were surveyed during the initial survey event conducted on April 11, 2018; six on the Anderson Property and two on the Chen Property. All six features sampled on the Anderson Property were associated with the abandoned quarry pit, labeled as pond #1 (P1) and seasonal wetland #8 (SW8) during the wetland delineation surveys. Two features were sampled on the Chen Property, both being small depressional wetland features within a larger wetland complex, labeled as seasonal wetland #1 (SW1) during the wetland delineation surveys. A total of four features were surveyed during the second of the three survey events which was conducted on May 10, 2018; two on the Anderson Property and two on the Chen Property. The two features sampled on the Anderson Property were associated with the abandoned quarry pit, labeled as pond #1 (P1) and seasonal wetland #8 (SW8) during the wetland delineation surveys. Two features were sampled on the Chen Property, both were small depressional features within the larger wetland complex, labeled as seasonal wetland #1 (SW1) during the wetland delineation surveys. A total of one feature was surveyed during the third and final survey event which was conducted on June 11, 2018; none on the Anderson Property and one feature on the Chen Property. The single feature sampled on the Chen Property was a depressional features within the larger seasonal wetland #1 (SW1) complex. One single feature was sampled during the third 7.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Receipt of USFWS approval to conduct wet season surveys on April 9, 2018 resulted in initiation of surveys. Surveys were conducted on April 11, May 10, and June 11, 2018. One male and two female individuals of the non -listed species Branchinecta lindahli (versatile fairy shrimp) were captured within a small depressional feature on the Chen Property within the south end of seasonal wetland #1 on April 11, 2018. The male that was captured was kept and preserved as a voucher specimen. No other features contained listed shrimp. No large -listed branchiopods were encountered during any of the other two survey events on either property. Commonly encountered aquatic organisms within the features that were sampled included pacific treefrog tadpoles (Pseudacris regilla), water boatman (Corixidae), diving beetles (Dytiscidae), scuds (Gammarus), dragonfly larvae (Anisoptera), and mosquito larvae Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 3 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Chen -Anderson Properties June 2018 924 (Cullicidae). Water conditions were generally turbid from cattle activity on the Chen Property and the features were mostly devoid of vegetation. The large quarry pond feature on the Anderson Property had clear water and lush vegetative growth, primarily bulrush tules (Schoenoplectus sp.) and spikerush (Eleocharis paulustris). 8.0 REFERENCES Eng. L.L., D. Belk, and C.H. Ericksen. 1990. California Anostraca: Distribution, Habitat, and Status. Journal of Crustacean Biology 10(2): 247-277. Ericksen, C.H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press, Inc., Eureka, California. Helm, B. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124-129. In Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems — proceedings from a 1996 conference, C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren, Jr. and Ro. Ornduff. Eds. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 285 pp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2016. . 2016. State and federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Wildlife and Plants of California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/ Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Mitsch, W.J. and Gosslink, J.G. 2000. Wetlands. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 920 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES Species/Lists/es species lists-form.cfm Listed Large Branchiopod Wet Season Survey 4 Olberding Environmental, Inc. Chen -Anderson Properties June 2018 925 Attachment 1 Figures 926 "a rrgr Ry PIerl.,Hit yd �o',rRd Fill) St`' Go 11e' walnut Creek ton. 1„'4 8 0), Rd Las Frampas Rego n al Wilderness hfand Valle `4 rr : land Hayward Ord Blvd Castro ' Clayton Mt Diablo State Park Diablo *MG Rd San won rgur C Yq PR mubirn Blvd Diamond Mines Regianal ParA -a IX n t ,rrr}; r"i`Rd i a _ Brentwood "' V. chestnut S r m In I. c.;lfqur Rd F- • n•Ii O I- yr til fr.; 4/�S ^y� L•ii-; h C} - Marsh Crash Rd oca Byron MwganTerrtory Pegiinol Proaerve a HiYyr and Rd 4 G ° Gann Regional Par}. 6y y o � tNhippleRd�{r - '� Union '. ° City aryR .$1P1r 4"/Pd n Oj r r . a o plate Parks Fremont Newark: $•+ram Yet C Ry ,� hdr r� $ 1.75 3.5 7 Scale: 1:250,000 1 inch = 4 miles 5 � x •�v ,sir`i Brvd Vint, Q Jeasatiton v„ a Mission Peak Rein nal Pat. 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 SL Surrol regional W llde me s e 4r Mt.; Fbo u nd V aF le ). Reg onal Park vase° kirk Vasco �v ave Byron rfamal Pbois A! torn on t p}s svia :1' e n 0 EastAv. 4 Livermore rr LeI Yale Regional Park * Property Locations Figure 1: Regional Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA 927 ro k,°QFm,ll let zt Yer rc he�A Stan crr ¢ap Ln 7. S 0�biln RaRcb°k Fnldield Peril A n lone 4.17 av 1S eke en Way sa`P.w kl e, Para ba8nn 8fyp TMapden WaY� Rldya cl5'� v umrna LAOA PalerWaN nY WA, Fake sp N. '1/4"Canfif��t Lav,nass $ V'yta L r 4' ininn Ave Of 41.ery wy4 5 44 rh '�6�t• 4 0~ o h FF uat Form �' O Fire, conmoin Poi 010 Odd yr 1 Kirkcaldy se m n fi ~ Stallansyne kwmw. E u1 4 E PrY Part' PI '" �d< ,�•Q • 5t E u j 9 - -- - " rn , elH nmry I2ennrs or ��rp4 PPrk J"i i`' card Ave g p; kP4r on Way a L. • mlde Pol.. Opd 0, S4 %. Trenery or ferrn n t u ❑ la p ASi e 0 1,000 2,000 Scale: 1:24,000 1 inch = 2,000 feet Feet 4,000 Avant! Ave San 1 mil: rr..rxn m,i , Et Charter Rd O c dF Terrae,naOr •lnY W Jack Lc"•ir..i• P. 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 2: Vicinity Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA 928 i �— 2 : APIE 2 LANE -� a A .M A D. Q R I A rroyo S A N T Santa Rita [t!!►e6aitabOn Cent.. I N. ows4:3e �- yP •�a1 b f .yam °•oo • • rnSCh i1 • A R 1 \ T, A Livermore USGS 7.5" Quadrangle 37°42'18.51 "N, 121 °50'46.48"W TO3S, RO1E, S3 0 1,000 2,000 Scale: 1:24,000 1 inch = 2,000 feet Feet 4,000 • • • a. Chen Property Anderson Property C s 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 3: USGS Topographic Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA 929 193 Blue Ravine Rd., Ste. 165 Folsom, CA 95630 Phone: (916) 985-1188 Figure 4: Aerial Map Chen & Anderson Properties Alameda County, CA Aerial Imagery Source & Date: USDA FSA NAIP, June 6, 2014 930 931 p study Area • Dana Points — wetland swales Wetlands Pond NM Seasonal Wetlands Sw1 0.03 SW2 0.02 sw3 DAM sws 0004 SW5 0.02 e 4126 SW9 0.001 SW10 0.001 SW11 0.002 1.60 Wetland Meaje linear Feet Swele W51 ws2 or1 u.n¢s a,ms 191 260 �35 fatal 0.931 FA A-P1-1 Multiple Spots Figure 6. Anderson Property Large -Listed Branchiopod 2017-18 Wet -Season Surveys 16. ',nand by .10100mn 1.1.0060 Consultin, LLC January 29. 2010 Attachment 2 Photo Documentation 933 Photo 1. Landscape photo of the Chen Property. Facing east. April 11, 2018. Photo 2. Landscape photo of the Chen Property. Facing north. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 934 Photo 3. This depressional feature on the south side of Seasonal wetland 1 on the Chen property contained fairy shrimp. Facing northwest. On data sheet at feature C-SW1-1. April 11, 2018. Photo 4. Photo of the same depressional feature facing southeast. Lisa Henderson and Frank Muzio are in the photo assisting in the sampling effort. On data sheet as feature C-SW1-1. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 935 Photo 5. This is the second depressional feature that was sampled on the Chen Property. Facing south. This feature was on the north side of Seasonal wetland 1. Labeled on data sheet as C-SW1-2. April 11, 2018. Photo 6. The second depressional feature sampled on the Chen Property. Facing west. Labeled on data sheet as C- SW1-2. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES i 936 Photo 7. The three large-branchiopod individuals that were encountered during sampling within feature C-SW1-1. The two females are on the top of the photo and the male is the one on the bottom. April 11, 2018. Photo 8. Landscape photo of the Anderson Property. Facing southwest. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 937 Photo 9. Landscape photo of the Anderson Property. Facing south. April 11, 2018. Photo 10. Overview photo of the quarry pit on the Anderson Property, corresponding with features P1 and SW8 of the wetland delineation. Facing northwest. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 938 Photo 11. Overview of the general area of the quarry pit on the Anderson Property. Facing west. April 11, 2018. Photo 12. Photo of surface condition within the wetlands of the quarry pit on the Anderson Property. Facing north. This feature was labeled as A-P1-1 on the data sheet. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 939 Photo 13. Photo of feature A-SW8-1 on the Anderson Property. The fringe of the quarry pit on the north side had a series of isolated depressional features of which this is one. Facing east. April 11, 2018. Photo 14. Photo of feature A-SW8-3 on the Anderson Property. One of a series of depressional features on the north side of the quarry pit. Facing east. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 940 Photo 15. Photo of feature A-SW8-4 on the Anderson Property. Facing east. One of a series of depressional features on the north side of the quarry pit. April 11, 2018. Photo 16. Photo of feature A-SW8-5 on the Anderson Property. Facing south. One of a series of depressional features on the north side of the quarry pit. April 11, 2018. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 941 Photo 17. Photo of the quarry pit wetland feature on the Anderson Property. Facing north. Labeled as A-P1-1 on the data sheet. May 10, 2018. Photo 18. Photo of feature A-SW8-4 on the Anderson Property. Facing east. May 10, 2018. The other features that were ponded during the previous survey were dry as of the May 10 survey event. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES i 942 Photo 19. This feature (C-SW1-1) on the Chen Property that contained fairy shrimp during the previous survey was dry as of May 10, 2018 and also for the June survey event. Facing north. Photo 20. Photo of feature C-SW1-3 on the Anderson Property. Facing west. May 10, 2018. This feature was a flowing water feature during the previous survey event but was barely ponded sufficiently for sampling during May. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 943 ., ., .. , .... ., , .... . , . . . . ... , • , : ...- ? ,- : , 4 •-e '.1-1-. ,i. -7 ' ...-. -''''. ; '-' '' '". ' -'.. A 2 ' i --. j --// ."1 '•••‘.•: , .c' 4' - L titt i -irl ,. r .-..t , • , '... ....S'=- -' '''- "••..r ;i.:'''':•"-(•`.s', .;',, , ., . : .r! ' • ,..$r)". ..::•; r ' (3P1:.!,i-47 • •i.. - . : 1 , tip.: 1.., • •. . `- (-:- • li .,1„...:,7,±.7-1:?-.4...:.;47.---741-„.'11:i, _.',...",- ,•,.., ... . ,',:..., - '6 ' - • ', - . , . : , - " • ,- ! ,.-,'? .' -'6 'r• ' • '', .:.• :.-- - " --iii,1;-*P -71. :e1)'11.,,`' '!";-. :':".).4: ..,2?•-:-.. i''_.: A,' ••••.! . .. , ;;v• „4-, 41. - • - ' ci ;1.. ,. ''' ; '14, ,.• lje,: i,..,4 '-':-.31 ',4:7-Z, • ':'.':a' "A!-:•- % . ' ::•• :di:L. -• . ..,11;,, . Photo 21. This feature (C-SW1-2) on the Chen Property was sampled for a second time on May 10, 2018. Facing west. Photo 22. This was the only feature sampled during the June 11, 2018 survey event. All other previously sampled features were dry. This feature was identified as C-SW1-4 on the data sheet. Facing north. CHEN-ANDERSON PROPERTIES 944 Attachment 3 Raw Data 945 411 $? z z z z z z w z ? ) ) ) ) ) \ \ \ 1\ \ \ } } } } } } k \ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ~� )!` A! 1 k To / \ j1 _ 0 _ _ _ _ / _ / _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ § _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ ] _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ pa_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ Est. Max. Surface Area (sq. ft.) 825 3937 2000 7500 2500 Et{ ` Q : 2 : ! 2 r : / - . , - , , 11I &! i : a : : # @ , , I11 a . , , _ , , _ 2/ A G 2 G@ G I 2 /@ $ S G 2!! 2 a e H _U; _U; _U� �U . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / ! \ i A-SW8-2 A-SW8-3 A-SW8-4 \ i \ 2 \ ; 946 i) § $? x x x x cut, co ? ) \ .0i E. \ \ \ )§ ! ! ! ! k\ ) ) ) ) )! )!` A! /\j1 _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ § _ _ _ _ § _ . . . § _ 0 _ = Est. Max. Surface Area (sq. ft.) 2000 !){` m , z z / . , , /ti : m = : &!i 777 : _ _ , 2/ @ 2 2 R /@ > 2 ! S $ 11i /) ( ( ; ( " \ \ \ \ ¢ A-S W 8-4 \ \ 947 111 z L R � at � 'r"U Ri• W ?�. fe 3 e 07, 948 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix F Arborist Report 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 949 PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT FOR THE DUBLIN FALLON EAST PROPERTY DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: GH PAC VEST, LLC 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 5115 Houston, TX 75056 Prepared by: OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 3170 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 260 San Ramon, California 94583 Phone: (925) 866-2111 — FAX (925) 866-2126 E-mail: jeff@olberdingenv.com Contact: Jeff Olberding May 2022 950 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1 2.0 TREE ASSESSMENT METHODS 1 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TREES 2 4.0 SUITABILITY FOR PRESERVATION 5 5.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF IMPACTS 8 6.0 PRELIMINARY MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 9 7.0 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES 10 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY 12 i 951 E hibits Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map This report should be cited as: Olberding Environmental, Inc. May 2022. Preliminary Arborist Report for the Dublin Fallon East Properties, Dublin, California. Prepared at the request of GH Pac Vest, LLC, Houston, Texas 11 952 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The project proponent is proposing a development on an approximately 190-acre site in Dublin, Alameda County, California. The surveyed site consists of two Properties; Chen and Anderson Properties (also known as the Dublin Fallon East Project) that are currently used for grazing and contain no structures. The two properties consist primarily of annual grassland habitat with wetlands and ephemeral drainages scattered throughout the Property. With construction plans still in the conceptual stage, Olberding Environmental, Inc. (OEI) was asked to prepare a Preliminary Arborist Report for the project. This report provides the following information: 1. Assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the Property boundaries area based on a visual inspection from the ground. 2. A preliminary assessment of impacts to trees from the proposed changes and identification of trees for preservation and removal. 3. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development 2.0 TREE ASSESSMENT METHODS Trees were assessed in May 2022. The assessment included all trees 6" in diameter and greater, located within the Property boundaries. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree as to species; 2. Tagging each tree with a unique identifying number and recording its location on a map; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point roughly 4.5 feet above grade (diameter at breast height (DBH)); 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 0 — 5: 5 — A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 — Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 — Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig, and small branch dieback, thinning crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2 — Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1— Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0 — Dead. 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "high", "moderate" or "low". Suitability for preservation considers the health, age, and structural condition of the tree, and its potential 1 953 to remain an asset to the site for years to come. igh Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring and may have a shorter lifespan than those in the `high' category. o Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TREES One hundred five (105) trees representing seventeen species were evaluated (Table 1). 96 trees surveyed were within the Property boundaries, with an additional nine trees located along Croak Road near the intersection with Dublin Boulevard. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment orm and locations are shown on the Tree Assessment Map (see Exhibits). Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrences of trees Chen Anderson Properties Dublin, Alameda County, CA Common Name Scientific Name Dead (0) Condition Poor Fair Good (1 2) (3) (4 — 5) Total Arroyo Willow Black Locust Chinese Arborvitae Chinese Elm Cider Gum Eucalyptus Coyote Willow Deodar Cedar Fremont Cottonwood Goodding's Willow Monterey Pine Olive Tree Peruvian Pepper Red Willow Saltcedar Siberian Elm Western Sycamore Willow species Salix lasiolepis Robinia pseudoacacia Platycladus orientalis Ulmus parvifolia Eucalyptus gunnii Salix exigua Cedrus deodara Populus fremontii Salix gooddingii Pinus radiata lea europaea Schinus molle Salix laevigata Tamarix ramosissima Ulmus pumila Platanus racemosa Salix sp. 5 6 - 11 1 - 3 5 9 - 1 1 - - 2 2 3 2 5 10 - 1 1 - - 1 1 2 11 18 31 1 2 - 2 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 7 11 4 22 - 1 - 1 3 3 - 6 1 2 1 - 1 1 - 4 Total 2 3 24 2.8% 22.8% 42 36 105 40% 34.3% 100% 954 The roughly 190-acre site is currently undeveloped land used for grazing. There are no structures on the Properties. The eastern Property, known as the Anderson Property, was surveyed first and contained three general areas with trees. The north area (Area A inset, Figure 1) appears to be an old quarry site. This quarry was excavated sometime between 1981 and 1985 based on historical aerial photographs. The trees surveyed in this area (Area A) did not exist prior to the quarry excavation. This area was composed of an excavated quarry that contained wetlands and ponds with scattered native Fremont cottonwood and willow trees. The southern half of the Anderson Property had two stands of trees (Areas B & C insets, Figure 1). These were primarily non-native eucalyptus, Chinese and Siberian elm trees, as well as native Monterey pine trees. These trees are also younger than 1981 as they were planted around the barn and other farm buildings that no longer exist on the Property. The Chen Property to the west of the Anderson Property had the largest trees, with a very mature western sycamore and a very large red willow, both of which had DBHs greater than 24 inches (Area D inset, Figure 1). These trees are visible in historical aerials from 1949 and are significantly older than that. Finally, a row of street trees along Croak Road were also surveyed near the intersection with Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (Area E inset, Figure 1). Tags used for the survey were numbered #1758 through #1862. Within the survey area, Fremont cottonwood (31 trees) and red willows (22 trees) were the most common species and represented 50% of the trees assessed. These tree species were predominantly found within the excavated quarry pit on the Anderson Property. This would make them approximately 37 years old. They were growing among other willow species including arroyo willow, coyote willow, and Goodding's willow, and a single non-native Saltcedar tree. The cottonwood trees were in good to very good condition with high suitability for preservation. The willows were in moderate condition, though willows tend to survive even severe damage. Of the 105 trees surveyed, 73 were California natives (69.5% natives). Fifty-seven (57) trees were young trees with trunk diameters of less than 12", thirty-nine (39) were semi -mature (12" to 24"), eight (8) were mature (24" to 36"), and one (1) were over -mature (>36" — Photo 1). Thirty-six (36) were in good to excellent condition, forty-two (42) in fair condition, twenty-four (24) were in poor condition. There were also three (3) dead trees that was measured and tagged (#1761, 1769 & 1855). 3 955 Photo 1: At the southwest comer end of the Chen Property, this red willow (# 1849) had a trunk diameter of 48" - the largest diameter tree on the property. One of a handful of trees with trunk diameters above 24" in the survey area. Twenty-seven (27) trees surveyed were in poor condition (or dead) with included bark between co -dominant stems, broken branches, and dieback, or with trunk rot (Photo 2), with the remaining seventy-eight (78) trees in fair or good condition. Numerous trees also had insect holes and fungal conks which indicate internal decay and will eventually lead to decline. Photo 2: The mature western sycamore tree at the southwest corner of the Chen Property had a DBH of 35". It had severe trunk -rot and was missing more than 50% of its trunk mass. Eucalyptus trees (10 trees) dominated Area B and were planted along a fence line. These fast- growing, non-native trees from Australia were likely planted as a windbreak in the 1980s (trees 1826 — 1836). There were also two native Monterey pine trees planted along this row of trees (#1832 & 1837). Area C at the south end of the Anderson Property contained several non-native, ornamental trees that had been planted in the 1980s around the farm buildings that have since been torn down. This stand of trees included a Peruvian pepper tree (#1838), two Chinese elm trees (#1839 & 1840), and six Siberian elm trees (#1841 — 1846). 4 956 Area D in the southwest corner of the Chen Property contained the oldest and largest trees in the survey area, including a 48" DBH red willow tree (#1849 — see photo 1 above) and a 35" DBH western sycamore tree (#1851 — see photo 2 above). Both trees may meet the requirements for Heritage Tree status in the City of Dublin; however, the western sycamore had a severely damaged trunk and was missing more than 50% of its trunk mass. These trees were visible in aerial imagery from 1949 and are significantly older than that. 4.0 SUITABILITY FOR PRESERVATION Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during the proposed project, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on the site must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive the impacts of the project, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability, and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in their new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure, and death should be allowed to continue if it does not put people or property at risk. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: • Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non -vigorous trees. • Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Western sycamore #1851 is an example of such trees. Trees that are located away from areas of potential development are not likely to cause damage. • Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For instance, cottonwoods and willows have a good tolerance to construction impacts while other trees may have difficulty reacting well to construction damage. Poor tree reactions may include physical injury leading to compartmentalization 5 957 and decay issues, pest complications, or soil constraints related to water availability and aeration. • Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. • Species invasiveness Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profiles/) lists species identified as being invasive. Alameda County is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Tamarix ramosissima (tree #1805) is a Cal-IPC "High" rated species and should be removed. • Fire ris Several of the species assessed at the site are identified by the California Invasive Plant Inventory as "increasing risk of catastrophic wildland fires". This is NOT something we consider when determining an individual tree's Suitability for Preservation and was not taken into account in the ratings described in Table 2 and in the Tree Assessment Form. 6 958 Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment Forms in Exhibits, and Table 2 below). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Table 2 Tree Suitability for Preservation Chen Anderson Properties Dublin, Alameda County High Moderate Low These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Twenty-three (23) native trees had high suitability for preservation, including: 1 Deodar cedar, 18 Fremont cottonwoods, and 4 red willows. Non-native trees in this category that may be suitable for preservation include: 2 Chinese elm trees, 5 black locust trees, 1 Chinese arborvitae tree, and 5 cider gum eucalyptus. Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring and may have shorter lifespans than those in the "high" category. Thirty-two (32) native trees had moderate suitability for preservation, including: 6 arroyo willows, 1 coyote willow, 11 Fremont cottonwoods, 2 Monterey pines, 11 red willows, and 1 unidentified willow species. Non-native trees that may be suitable for preservation included: 3 black locust trees, 2 cider gum eucalyptus, 1 Peruvian pepper tree, and 3 Siberian elm trees. Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings (non-native) or be unsuited for use areas. Seven (27) trees had low suitability for preservation, including: 5 arroyo willows, 3 cider gum eucalyptus, 2 Fremont cottonwoods, 1 Goodding's willow, 1 olive tree, 7 red willows, 3 Siberian elms, 1 western sycamore, and 3 unidentified willows. Though Saltcedar is classified as in moderate health (# 1805), it is rated as a highly invasive species and should not be preserved. 7 959 5.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF IMPACTS Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The May 2022 Tree Assessment Form was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from construction were evaluated with the assumption that every tree on the Properties being removed except for those in Area D around the large emergent wetland feature (Figure 1). As such, this assessment of impacts to the trees must be considered preliminary. Additional trees may be identified for preservation or removal as plans are refined. Potential impacts from construction were estimated for each tree. Precise impacts will have to be determined once trees have been located and plotted, and the plans are finalized. The most significant impacts to trees would be associated with grading or recontouring of the hillsides and the construction of the Dublin Boulevard extension across both properties. Based on plans for the properties, three (3) trees have been identified for potential preservation, including two red willow trees (#1849 & 1852) with DBH in excess of 24" (Table 3, following page) and a single Western sycamore tree. The Western sycamore (#1851) may qualify as a Protected Heritage Tree by City of Dublin ordinance; however, due to the trunk damage and low health rating of this tree, it will continue to decline and eventually collapse. The remaining trees are either less than 6.5" DBH, non-native, dead, or interfere with planned construction. As relates to this project, City of Dublin Municipal Code §5.60 Heritage Trees defines protected heritage trees as "(1)Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural grade; (2) A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review or subdivision map; (3) A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree." The three trees preliminarily identified for preservation will need to be accurately located by the surveyors and plotted on the plans. I would also recommend that if any of the large Fremont cottonwoods with a health rating of 4 or above can be preserved without interfering with development plans, that this be considered. 102 trees on the two properties are to be removed and would not be considered "Protected Trees" by the City of Dublin tree ordinance. They may be removed at the Property owner's discretion unless there are any Planning Department conditions requiring that certain trees remain in place. Some of these trees may also be riparian associated trees that would fall under the regulatory authority of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 8 960 Table 3. Trees Preliminarily Identified for Preservation Chen and Anderson Properties City of Dublin, CA. Tag Species Diameter Protected? Recommendation 1849 Red willow 48 No Preserve, outside impacts 1851 Western sycamore 35 Yes Preserve, outside impacts 1852 Red willow 31, 24 No Preserve, outside impacts 6.0 PRELIMINARY MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS OEI was asked by the Project Proponent to provide recommendations for mitigation of trees proposed for removal as part of the project. In general, we consider the greatest loss of current and potential future environmental benefits to be associated with the removal of native tree species of moderate and high suitability for preservation. These are the trees we would expect to be the best adapted to site conditions and have the greatest potential for longevity. Based on my review of the data, there were no City of Dublin protected native trees that would need to be removed as a part of the tentative development plan. The willows and Fremont cottonwoods in the quarry area of the Anderson Property (Area A) would however, qualify as riparian associated trees as they are growing among several wetland features and are species that are associated with the interface between land and water. Because these are riparian associated trees, they will be regulated by CDFW. OEI will work with the Project Proponent to recommend mitigation of all native riparian trees of moderate and high suitability for preservation at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon replacement trees. In my experience, 15-gallon containers have been in the pots/nursery for the least amount of time and have the greatest potential to have a well formed, but not defective, root system. These trees also often catch-up with 24" box trees in terms of overall size and development, within a few years of being planted. Where the immediate visual impact of a larger tree is desired, consider using a 24" or 48" box. I would recommend that each 24" box be counted as two (2) 15-gallon trees and each 48" box be counted as four (4) 15-gallon trees. Willows and cottonwoods are well adapted to and have performed well on the site and would be appropriate to consider for mitigation plantings. Other California native trees that can be expected to perform well would include Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica). 9 961 7.0 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development as well as maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Impacts can be minimized by coordinating demolition, grading, and construction activities within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The following recommendations will help maintain and improve the health and vitality of trees preserved at the property site. Design recommendations 1. Have the vertical and horizontal locations of all the trees identified for preservation established and plotted on all plans. Forward these plans to the Consulting Arborist for review and comment. Additional trees may be identified for preservation or removal as a result. 2. Project plans affecting the trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist regarding tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, site plans, improvement plans, utility, and drainage plans, grading plans, and landscape and irrigation plans. 3. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established around each tree to be preserved. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. For design purposes, the dripline shall be considered the minimum Tree Protection Zone. Once trees have been located and plotted on plans and a final determination of which trees will be preserved is made, specific TREE PROTECTION ZONES will be identified for each tree to be preserved. 4. Include Tree Preservation Notes, trees to be preserved, and TREE PROTECTION ZONES (TPZs) on all construction plans. 5. Underground services including utilities, sub -drains, water, or sewer shall be routed around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 6. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 7. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area. Therefore, foundations, footings, and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement. Pre -construction treatments and recommendations 1. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing, drilling, or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or equivalent as approved by the Consulting Arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. 10 962 2. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 2" and larger in diameter and raise canopies as needed for construction activities. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back and protected from damage. 3. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. Tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season to avoid scheduling delays. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. 4. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Stumps shall be ground below grade. Any brush clearing required within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. 6. Apply and maintain 3-4" of wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Use of coarse wood chips from trees removed on the site is ideal for this purpose. Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. 2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved. 3. Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required and monitor all root pruning activities. 4. Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist. 11 963 5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must always remain outside fenced areas. 6. Prior to grading, pad preparation, excavation for foundations/footings/walls, trenching, etc. trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE by cutting all roots cleanly to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required and monitor all root pruning activities. 7. All underground utilities, drain lines, or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. If lines must traverse through the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree as directed by the Consulting Arborist. 8. No materials, equipment, spoil, waste, or wash -out water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE (fenced area). 9. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. 10. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. Any pesticides used on -site must be tree -safe and not easily transported by water. 11. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. 12. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6" of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6" depth. Maintenance of impacted trees Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre -development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for structural condition is recommended. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY In total, 105 trees were tagged in the survey area, 96 trees within the Chen and Anderson properties and an additional 9 trees along Croak Road near the intersection with Dublin Boulevard. Tag numbers ran from #1758 through #1862. Of the trees surveyed, three native trees were identified for preservation due to their location being outside the potential construction footprint and their greater than 24" diameter. Only one qualifies as a City of Dublin protected heritage tree, a large California sycamore; however, this sycamore 12 964 has a severely damaged trunk and is in decline which lessens its value. Additional native trees may be chosen for preservation by the project proponent if deemed appropriate. Native willow and Fremont cottonwood trees located in the northern part of the Anderson Property may fall under the regulation of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife due to their riparian association. OEI recommends mitigating for these native species at a 3:1 mitigation ratio with 15- gallon replacements of suitable native trees. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Richard Lescalleet ISA Certified Arborist WE-13135A 13 965 L(1 0 120 0 Client: GH Pac Vest, LLC Address: 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Ste. 5115, Houston, TX 75056 Project Name: Chen & Anderson Properties Project Address: Croak Road, Dublin, CA 94588 Tree Assessr CONDITION COMMENTS SUITABILTIY FOR 0 0 a PROTECTED O Z W W PRESERVATION 5=EXCELLENT Old Tag# 725 C i y cc G Od Tag# 723, Co -dominant stem Old Tagil 754, Dead tree Old Tag# 752 Splint Trunk Trunk damage Fungal conks, Trunk damage Split Trunk Old Tag# 750 Dead Tree C i cc G Growing horizontally along ground Shares root system w/ #1774 Shares root system w/ #1773 Multi -stem shrub Multi -stem shrub Multi -stem shrub Adventitious roots Leaf blotch, damaged trunk, insects Old Tag# 724 Moderate a) v 0 High Low Moderate High Low Low Moderate Moderate on Low Low Moderate Moderate High High a, a) 0 Low Low Low a) a) 0 Low Low on M M d- O M d- N N M M u') O N M M d- d- M N N N M N N d- o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N lD u 15, 15 I� if) I� 0") 7,4,4,3,5 LO US' DD - 6,4,4,4,4 - Cq 'O '--I ' '--1 Coyote Willow Arroyo Willow Fremont Cottonwood O = Fremont Cottonwood O 0 C 0 U E0 a! Gooding's Willow ci O _ 6- O> _ O -0 Fremont Cottonwood si O =>_ Arroyo Willow Arroyo Willow Arroyo Willow O 0 C 0 U 0 E a! Fremont Cottonwood Arroyo Willow Arroyo Willow Arroyo Willow Arroyo Willow O > -O CC O > o CC Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood 00 u1 N r-I 0) 1.11 N r-I O lD N r-I ri lD N c-I N lD N r-I m lD N r-I d- lD N r-I L.f) lD N r-I Lc) (D N r-I N (JD N r-I 00 l0 N r-I 0) lD N r-I O I. N r-I r-I I-, N r-I N N N r-I M N- N r-I N N r-I if) N' N r-I l0 N N r-I N I-, N r-I 00 N N r-I 0) I-, N r-I 1780 1781 N 00 N r-I 966 Ln 0 N by 0- Client: GH Pac Vest, LLC Address: 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Ste. 5115, Houston, TX 75056 Project Name: Chen & Anderson Properties - ga 0 Project Address: Croak Road, Dublin, CA 94588 Tree Assessment COMMENTS SUITABILTIY FOR CONDITION PRESERVATION CC 0 0 a I PROTECTED SIZE DIAMETER (in 5=EXCELLENT w a) _c c z w w 1- H Old Tag# 726 in cr to rci 0 Insect Damage, Root damage Old Tag# 743, dieback Adventitious roots Adventitious roots Branched Trunk Insects, trunkrot Old Tag# 727 Branched Trunk Branched trunk, Insect/fungal damage Old Tag# 736 Old Tag# 737 Trunk Damage, Horizontal Trunk Invasive Old Tag#742 Moderate Moderate Low High s bn 2 s 40 2 Moderate High Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate t a0 = t a0 _ Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low M M N M N M N M M M M M M M M M M c-1 0 z ON ON 0 z ON 0 z ON 0 z ON 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z 00 r c-1 O LO � 00 - I" Mi c-1 18 00 10 c-1 N c-I 00 00 00 lD 0 v CC 0 - v CC 0 v CC Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood 0 v CC 0 v CC Fremont Cottonwood 0 v CC 0 v CC 0 v CC Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood 0 75 v CC Arroyo Willow Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood Saltcedar (Tamarisk) Fremont Cottonwood 0 a, CC M 00 1� c-1 1784 1785 1786 1- 00 c-1 1788 al 00 c-1 1790 c-I Ol c-1 N al N c-1 M 6l N c-I r al N c-1 if) Cr) N c-I LID al N c-I 6l N c-I 00 Dl N c-I CT) 0-1 N c-I 0 O 00 c-I c-1 O 00 c-I N O 00 c-1 m O 00 c-I O 00 c-1 Lfl O 00 c-I lD O 00 c-1 1807 967 0 M by a Client: GH Pac Vest, LLC Address: 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Ste. 5115, Houston, TX 75056 Project Name: Chen & Anderson Properties Project Address: Croak Road, Dublin, CA 94588 Tree Assessr O as 2 CONDITION COMMENTS SUITABILTIY FOR O O PROTECTED CC W H W 2 W N N PRESERVATION 5=EXCELLENT Co-dom Trunk, Included bark Old Tag# 739, root damage Old Tag# 738, dieback Old Tag# 766 Multi -stem Old Tag# 764, multi -stem Old Tag# 762 L0 to al 0 Old Tag# 760 Old Tag# 763 Dieback, broken trunk Old Tag# 759, Co-dom trunk Old Tag# 758 Old Tag# 757 Old Tag#765, dieback Old Tag#756 Old Tag# 722 Old Tag# 721 Old Tag# 720 Old Tag# 719 Old Tag# 718 Old Tag# 717 Lo xt to co 0 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate t OD _ High t 0A _ Moderate Low Low Low High Moderate Moderate t OD _ t bA _ Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate M M M M N M d- M N-I N N M M M N d" M N N M O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O Z M r-i O c-I O i--I N c--I Cr/ I. i--I L.f) c--I N i--I 00 I. - 00 N c-I lD l0 M c-I LIl c-1 N -I h Ol N--1 27 N N O % -1 LI) N %-I % -1 LO % -1 Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood O O c O ti c 0 L o — - a CC Arroyo Willow Arroyo Willow Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood O 0 c 0 ti c E as L LL 0 — - v CC 0 _ Iv CC 0 _ v CC Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood 0 = Iv CC 0 = v CC Fremont Cottonwood Fremont Cottonwood Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Monterey Pine COLL O CO c-I 01 O 00 %--1 1810 % -1 %--1 00 %--1 N c-I CO c-I M r1 00 % -1 ci CO ci L(1 r1 00 % -1 l0 ci CO ci N. r1 00 % -1 CO N--I CO c1 01 %--1 00 % -1 1820 % -1 N 00 %--1 N N CO c-I M N 00 % -1 d- N CO c1 L1) N 00 % -1 LO N CO c1 N N 00 % -1 co N CO c1 Q) N 00 % -1 1830 c-I M 00 %--1 1832 968 L 0 00 a Client: GH Pac Vest, LLC Address: 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Ste. 5115, Houston, TX 75056 Project Name: Chen & Anderson Properties Project Address: Croak Road, Dublin, CA 94588 Tree Assessmen' CONDITION COMMENTS SUITABILTIY FOR CC 0 0 0 I 1-1 PROTECTED PRESERVATION 5=EXCELLENT Old Tag# 715 Old Tag# 714 Old Tag# 713, Branched Trunk Old Tag# 712, Branched Trunk t to (0 I- 0 Old Tag# 703 Old Tag# 702, Trunk damage Old Tag# 704 Old Tag# 706, Co-dom Trunk Old Tag# 705 Old Tag# 707, dieback Old Tag# 708, dieback Old Tag# 709, Multi -trunk Old Tag# 710, Co-dom Trunk, Included bark Shrub Old Tag# 701 Old -growth tree, Possible Heritage Tree Dieback, Multi -trunk, growing through fence Old Tag# 775, Major trunkrot, Poss. Heritage Old Tag# 777, Co-dom Trunk, Poss. Heritage Multi -trunk Multi -trunk Dead Old Tag# 779, Dieback, Multi -trunk Multi -trunk Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low t 40 2 High Low Low t 00 2 Low Low Low Low Low M M N N M M N M d- d- dr N N dr M cr O M cr No No No No No No No No No No 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z No N } No Yes Yes No No o z No 0 z to N N .--I 15, 16, 8 14,9,13,21 LC) r-I O M M N N N L '6 N Cr) Ql N 00 I",`� i--1 M c I c-I s. % -I .—I-' M m % -I N 48 CO 1 35 24, 31 7,4,2,2,1 12, 4, 4, 4, 6, 8, 10 lD % -1 N M m 00 R Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Eucalyptus Monterey Pine Peruvian Pepper Chinese Elm Chinese Elm Siberian Elm Siberian Elm Siberian Elm Siberian Elm Siberian Elm Siberian Elm Chinese Arborvitae Deodar Cedar 0 cc v Western Sycamore 0 cc Black Locust Black Locust Black Locust Black Locust Black Locust 1833 1834 u.) 0000 c-I to 0000 % -1 I, 0000 c-I 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 lD 00 %--I 1847 1848 1849 O 000 %--I c I 0000 c-I 1852 1853 1854 Ln 0000 .--I lD 0000 %--I 1857 969 4- 0 an ao Client: GH Pac Vest, LLC Address: 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Ste. 5115, Houston, TX 75056 Project Name: Chen & Anderson Properties Project Address: Croak Road, Dublin, CA 94588 Tree Assessmen' CONDITION COMMENTS SUITABILTIY FOR PRESERVATION CC 0 0 PROTECTED 5=EXCELLENT 1) c Multi -trunk Multi -trunk Multi -trunk Multi -trunk Mature, Poss. Heritage Tree Low Low Low Low 00 O Z o Z 0 Z 0 Z Yes - U0 N N N Lri l0 OO r-1 c-1 c-1 24 Black Locust Black Locust Black Locust Black Locust 0 aw cc 1 OO u1 00 i--1 0) u1 00 i--1 O l0 00 i--1 1861 N l0 00 r-I 1863 1864 Lf) l0 OO c-1 l0 l0 OO i--1 1867 CO l0 00 i--I O) l0 OO .--1 1870 c-1 I", OO c-1 1872 1873 N OO %--1 1.r) r` OO c-1 t0 N 00 % -1 is, r` OO c-1 00 N 00 % -1 0) r` OO c-1 O OO 00 % -1 c-1 OO OO c-1 1882 970 971 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix G CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 972 &� wra Environmental Consultants MEMORANDUM TO: Wooi See, GH PacVest FROM: Bernhard Warzecha, WRA, Senior Environmental Permitting Specialist CC: Jason Laub, Bay West Development Leslie Lazarotti, WRA, Principal -in -Charge DATE: February 22, 2024 SUBJECT: Dublin 580 Fallon East: CEQA Bio Mitigation Measures Status and Implementation Plan Project Overview GH PacVest (Applicant) is proposing the Dublin Fallon 580 Project (project), a mixed -use development located on a 192-acre site in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The proposed project involves conversion of an undeveloped property into commercial, residential, and recreational land uses intermixed with open space. The project is located immediately northeast of the Fallon Road/Interstate 580 (I-580) Interchange within Planning Subareas D (Fallon Gateway) and E (Fallon Village Center) of the 1994 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and within the Fallon Village Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) study area. The property is zoned General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO), Open Space (OS), Community Park (CP), Public/Semi-Public (P/SP), and Medium High Density Residential (MH) as delineated in the 1985 City of Dublin General Plan, the EDSP, and the approved Stage 1 PD. The project will develop the property consistent with these plans, but deed restrictions proposed within portions of GC/CO, and all Nature Park land will increase aquatic resource protection and prohibit development over 50.08 acres. The project will also initiate the construction of the Dublin Boulevard extension, a regional transportation improvement, and will widen the portion of Fallon Road abutting the project site to the west in association with the Dublin Boulevard extension. Purpose of the Memorandum This memorandum provides information requested by the City of Dublin (City) related to compliance with Biological Resources Mitigation Measures (MMs) needed for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project (Project). Specifically, this memorandum focuses on MMs flagged by the City for Project compliance review based on the following CEQA documents: • Environmental Impact Report [for the] Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR; Wallace Roberts & Todd 1992) WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 rnll www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 973 • East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2002 SEIR; City of Dublin 2002) • Fallon Village Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Fallon Village SEIR; Haag, 2005) Additionally, this memorandum is also intended to satisfy the 2002 SEIR MM SM-BIO-1 requiring a "Resource Management Plan . The Resource Management Plan for East Dublin Properties (RMP) was prepared in 2004, and includes the Project site. The Applicant's planned implementation of the MMs as presented in this memo will be consistent with the applicable measures of the RMP, however implementation will be updated as appropriate to the more recent and specific MMs developed since publication of the RMP, listed below. As required in SM-BI-1, this memo addresses applicable mitigation measures for the development of the proposed Project on the project site. This memorandum includes information regarding specific off -site mitigation lands and the status and implementation of specific Mitigation Measures identified below. We understand that the City's CEQA consultant may use the information contained in this memorandum, and information provided by the Applicant team, as part of its evaluation of the Project's compliance with applicable Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan biological resources policies. The City -flagged MMs are addressed as follows: SM1-BIO-4: If a special -status plant species cannot be avoided, then the area containing the plant species must be measured and one of the following steps must be taken to ensure replacement on a 1:1 ratio (by acreage): a) Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal amount of acreage either within the Project area or off -site that contains the plant; or b) Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost or use seeds from another source within the Tri- valley area and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within the Project area or off -site. Such area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. If the plants fail to establish after a five-year period, then step "a above must be implemented. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful. AND SSM2-B1O-1 (revised). If special -status plants cannot be avoided, then the area containing the plant that is to be impacted, and the approximate number of plants to be impacted, must be determined, and the following steps must be taken: 1 SM refers to mitigation measures from the 2002 SEIR 2 SSM refers to mitigation measures from the Fallon Village SEIR. WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 rnll www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 2 974 a) Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another source within the Livermore and Amador valleys, and their surrounding watersheds, and seed an area suitable for supporting the plant, either within the Project area or off -site, at a level sufficient to replace the impacted individuals at a 1:1 ratio on an individual plant and basis, and at a ratio no less than 0.5:1 on an occupied habitat basis. The mitigation site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. If the mitigation site fails to support at least as many plants as were impacted within a five-year period, then step "b" below must be implemented. b) Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal amount of acreage either within the Project area or off -site that contains the plant. Prior to submission of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful. Implementation Status and Plan: The Applicant has completed several special -status plant surveys3 and identified and mapped sensitive plant populations on the Project site required to be addressed under CEQA.4 Most of these populations occur within the proposed Project grading footprint and cannot be avoided. Consistent with the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) the Applicant will prepare and implement a Mitigation Plan consistent with the requirements of SM-BIO-4 and SSM-BIO-1. Mitigation will consist of a combination of the following: preservation of on -site and/or off -site mitigation in perpetuity, and/or seed harvest (ideally from the populations on site), with subsequent establishment of an equal area for each population at a 1:1 ratio on an individual plant and basis, and at a ratio no less than 0.5:1 on an occupied habitat basis within 5 years, preserved in perpetuity. On -site mitigation opportunities may include deed -restricted and preserved creek, wetland and upland habitat potentially suitable to establish populations of the rare plants impacted by the Project. Potential off -site mitigation would include compensatory mitigation on parcels within the same regional watershed owned by the City of Livermore, and the purchase of mitigation credits from the N3 Ranch mitigation bank or other agency -approved alternative mitigation bank or turnkey mitigation site. The N3 Ranch is an approximately 50,000-ac private property located south of the City of Livermore in Alameda, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus counties. It is a suitable mitigation site for mitigating the Project's impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S and State, as well as a location for species -specific mitigation. A Mitigation Plan is being prepared as part of the Resource Agency permit applications, and the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) performance standards will be 3 Olberding Environmental, Inc. September 2022. Special -Status Plant Survey Report for the Dublin Fallon East Project, City of Dublin, California. Prepared for GH America Investments, INC, Houston, Texas. 4 Olberding Environmental, Inc. October 2022. Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Prepared for GH Pac Vest LLC. WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 rnll www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 3 975 implemented, including those specific to impacts to special -status plants as outlined in Chapter 3 of the EACCS: - Avoidance of direct and indirect impacts to the extent feasible - Minimization of unavoidable impacts through appropriate design and construction measures - Mitigation of residual impacts through on -site or off -site preservation, enhancement, restoration, or creation of suitable habitat - Monitoring and adaptive management of mitigation sites to ensure long-term viability and functionality The Mitigation Plan, once approved by the regulatory agencies will be submitted to the City for informational and record -keeping purposes. SM-B1O-5: To the extent feasible, implementation of the Project through subsequent preparation of Stage 2 development proposals on a property -by -property basis shall be designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States (which include seasonal wetlands and intermittent streams) within the Project area. Examples of avoidance and minimization include (1) reducing the size of future individual development projects within the Project area, (2) design future development projects within the Project area so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts to waters of the United States, and (3) establish and maintain wetland or upland vegetated buffers to protect open water such as streams. In order to protect the particularly sensitive Arroyo willow riparian woodland and red -legged frog habitat found in the Fallon Road drainage from Fallon Road upstream to its terminus, future development projects within the Project area either shall completely avoid this drainage or limit impacts to bridge crossings (as opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacting features. Implementation Status and Plan: The Project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to waters of the United States to the extent feasible. Specifically, the size of the Project grading footprint has been reduced to allow for deed -restricted preservation of 10.4± acres (1,840± linear feet) of waters and wetlands, including streams, and associated riparian habitat and upland buffers. These avoidance areas include avoidance of the riparian woodland lining the drainage in the northwest corner of the property, along Fallon Road. The Project includes preservation of on -site willow riparian woodland occurring on the northwest corner of the property and widening and daylighting of portions of the downstream reaches of the perennial stream along Fallon Road, a portion of which currently flow through closed culvert pipes. A creek enhancement and mitigation design plan has been prepared by ENGEO (Attachment A). Additionally, the Project will obtain authorization from the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS as applicable. The permitting programs administered by these agencies (including compliance with CFGC 1602 and 2081, the Clean Water Act, Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and State and Federal Endangered Species Acts) will require the Project to avoid, minimize and compensate for potential impacts to all aquatic resources and special -status species and their habitats, including California red -legged frog. With implementation of the agency -required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures for this project, the requirements of SM-BIO-5 will be achieved concurrently. Additionally, project and mitigation implementation will be consistent with the requirements developed for the EACCS to protect streams, riparian and CRLF habitat. SM-B1O-6: To the extent that avoidance and minimization are not feasible and wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters will be filled, such impacts shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 . .. www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 4 976 (measured by acreage) within the Project area if feasible, through the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands, intermittent streams or other waters. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map for any property within the Project area, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure. AND SM-BIO-7: If mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall mitigate the fill of wetlands or other waters at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off -site location acceptable to the City. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure. Implementation Status and Plan: The Applicant proposes to mitigate unavoidable impacts to creeks and wetlands at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (measures by acre). This will be achieved by a combination of on -site creation/preservation, in combination with compensatory mitigation on parcels within the same regional watershed owned by the City of Livermore, and obtaining credits from N3 Ranch mitigation or other agency -approved alternative mitigation bank or turnkey mitigation site. Additionally, project and mitigation implementation will be consistent with the requirements developed for the EACCS to protect and mitigate impacts to wetlands, intermittent streams and other waters. EACCS mitigation measures related to wetlands, intermittent streams and other waters are designed to protect and enhance the ecological functions and values of these aquatic resources. The EACCS provides a framework for identifying, implementing, and monitoring mitigation projects that compensate for the unavoidable impacts of development activities on wetlands, intermittent streams and other waters within the EACCS planning area. Consistent with the EACCS, the Project's mitigation will establish performance standards and success criteria: - Mitigation projects will be located within the same regional watershed - Mitigation projects will be compatible with the existing and planned land uses, and avoid or minimize conflicts with agricultural operations, public utilities, flood control, fire management and other public services. The Mitigation Plan, once approved by the regulatory agencies will be submitted to the City for informational and record -keeping purposes. Additionally, the Project will obtain authorization from the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and USFWS. The permitting programs administered by these agencies (including compliance with CFGC 1602 and 2081, the Clean Water Act, Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, state and federal Endangered Species Acts) will require the Project compensate for potential impacts to all aquatic resources in -kind, and are expected to require compensatory mitigation for loss of aquatic resources at a ratio of 2:1 or higher. Therefore, with implementation of the agency- WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 . .. www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 5 977 required compensatory mitigation measures for this project, the requirements of this SM-BIO-6 and 7 will be achieved concurrently. SM-B1O-14: If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS, shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. This mitigation, to be proposed in a mitigation and monitoring plan submitted to the City, shall be required prior to submittal of the Stage 2 Development Plans and tentative maps for any specific property within the Project area. In selecting off -site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high -quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. If the identified mitigation lands have been approved by the City, the following guidelines [outlined in SM-BIO-15] implemented prior to and during construction would reduce impacts to individual CRLF and preserved CRLF habitat. Implementation Status and Plan: The Applicant will mitigate unavoidable impacts to CRLF habitat at a 3:1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by the USFWS through the Section 7 consultation process. The Applicant has submitted a CWA Section 404 permit application, which requires consultation with USFWS defining the adequate compensatory mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation lands and/or mitigation credits, as well as avoidance and minimization measures to minimize incidental take of this species. This process will include preparation of a mitigation and monitoring plan element, which will also be provided to the City for informational and record -keeping purposes once approved by the regulatory agencies. Specifically, restoration of Jordan Creek (Attachment A) and adjacent wetland avoidance will increase quality and quantity of CRLF habitat on -site. Both on -site and off -site mitigation for CRLF will be consistent with the EACCS, including, but not limited to: - Minimizing indirect impacts to CRLF and its habitat by implementing all required Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs), best management practices such as erosion control, fencing, lighting, noise reduction, and invasive species management. - Compensating for unavoidable impacts to CRLF and its habitat by providing habitat restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation following the EACCS Impact/Mitigation Scoring for California red -legged frog in the EACCS Study Area (Appendix E, Table E-5.). - Monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and the status of the CRLF population and habitat. With implementation of all measures required by the USFWS/Corps through ESA Section 7 consultation for CRLF, and consistency with the EACCS, the requirements of SM-BIO-14 will be achieved concurrently. SM-BIO-19: If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands, providing similar or better aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) at a 1:1 ratio shall be set aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat shall be mitigated by preserving upland on -site, or if necessary, by preserving currently occupied upland tiger salamander habitat off -site. Aquatic habitat shall be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic California tiger salamander breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat. This mitigation, included in a mitigation and monitoring plan, shall be submitted to the City prior to submittal of Stage 2 development plans and tentative maps. In selecting off -site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving large blocks of WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 . .. www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 6 978 habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved areas to existing open space and other high -quality habitat, and excluding or limiting public use within preserved areas. Implementation Status and Plan: The Applicant will mitigate unavoidable impacts to CTS habitat at a 1:1 replacement ratio by preserving upland on -site, or if necessary, by preserving currently occupied upland tiger salamander habitat off -site. Aquatic habitat will be mitigated by creating an equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic California tiger salamander breeding areas within the preserved upland habitat, if feasible. Mitigation will be consistent with the EACCS, specifically as stated in Table E-4. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for California tiger salamander in the EACCS study area. Additionally, the Applicant has submitted a CWA Section 404 permit application, which requires consultation with USFWS defining the adequate compensatory habitat mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation lands and/or mitigation credits, as well as avoidance and minimization measures to minimize incidental take of this species. Additionally, the Applicant will obtain an Incidental Take Permit from CDFW, which furthermore will define adequate compensatory mitigation. This process will include preparation of a mitigation and monitoring plan element, which will also be provided to the City for informational and record -keeping purposes once approved by the regulatory agencies. With implementation of all measures required by the USFWS/Corps through ESA Section 7 consultation, and California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 et seq., the requirements of MM SM-BIO-19 will be achieved concurrently. SSM-BIO-2 (revised) (burrowing owl). During the breeding season (February 1-August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel. Implementation Status and Plan: Available documentation, including CDFW's CNDDB, the Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Dublin Fallon East Property (Olberding Environmental 2022) and unpublished results from site visits by other biologists over the past years (including Johnson Marigot Consulting), indicates that the site has not been occupied since 2002. Additionally, the Applicant has retained WRA to assessing the site for burrowing owl presence or absence by Conducting burrowing owl surveys in 2024 according to the latest CDFW survey protocol defined in the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The results will be submitted to the City for review. If a burrowing owl is found to occupy the Project site, the Applicant will coordinate with CDFW to develop an adequate Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, and/or implement related MMs SSM-BIO-3 through SSM-BIO-5. Additionally, burrowing owl is a focal species of the EACCS. Therefore, the Project will implement applicable mitigation measures related to this species. WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 . .. www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 7 979 ATTACHMENT A. WRA, Inc. 12169 G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 www.wra-ca.com • ph: 415.454.8868 980 GH PACVEST PROPERTY MITIGATION CREEK DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA JORDAN CREEK GEOMORPHIC BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT Copyright © 2023 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. SUBMITTED TO Mr. Jason Laub Bay West Development c/o GH PacWest LLC 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 PREPARED BY ENGEO Incorporated October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 PROJECT NO. 4663.110.007 ENGEO Expect Excellence- 981 ENGEO Expect Excellence October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Mr. Jason Laub Bay West Development c/o GH PacWest LLC 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 Subject: GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek Dublin, California Dear Mr. Laub: GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS JORDAN CREEK GEOMORPHIC BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT Project No. 4663.110.007 ENGEO prepared this basis of design report for the Jordan Creek channel mitigation, proposed along the western boundary of the GH PacVest Property in Dublin, California. A hydrologic analysis provided by MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers, Inc. (MacKay & Somps), along with our geomorphic site reconnaissance and preliminary hydraulic analysis, form the basis of design provided in this report. This report discusses our findings and the recommended channel mitigation as shown in Figure 1. We have developed these recommendations in conjunction with the project civil engineer, MacKay & Somps. We expect these recommendations will be reviewed by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated Brooke Spruit, P Julia M. Moriarty, P bs/ch/jb/jam/ca onathan Buck, PE 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250 • San Ramon, CA 94583 • (925) 866-9000 • Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com 982 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND 1 1.2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND HISTORICAL CONDITIONS 1 1.3 PURPOSE 3 1.4 PROJECT GOALS 4 2.0 DISCUSSION 4 2.1 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS 4 2.2 GEOMORPHIC ANALYSIS 5 2.3 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 6 2.4 CHANNEL INPUTS 7 2.5 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT/EROSION 8 3.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 10 5.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 10 SELECTED REFERENCES FIGURE APPENDIX A — MacKay & Somps — Hydrologic Analysis Jordan Creek Watershed ENGEO i of i October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 983 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND The GH PacVest Property and planned residential development project is located at the headwaters of Jordan Creek in Dublin, California. This Basis of Design Report is for the design of a creek channel (Jordan Creek) mitigation being proposed along the western boundary of the GH PacVest Property (Site), as shown in Figure 1. Jordan Creek is located within the Alameda Creek watershed, which drains from the eastern hillsides of Alameda County to the East Bay. Further, the creek is located within the Arroyo Mocho Canal sub -watershed, which begins in west Livermore and carries the flow of Arroyo Mocho northwest to join with Arroyo Las Positas. The region generally receives the majority of its precipitation in the winter months with a mean annual precipitation of 16 inches per year at the Site (Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, 2018). The drainage area for Jordan Creek is comprised of predominantly open space drainage and a pedestrian corridor that runs northeast to southwest through the middle of the existing Jordan Ranch and Positano residential communities. Existing subdrain outfalls from the Jordan Ranch and Positano developments contribute dry -weather flows to the creek channel on the order of 0.03 cfs (ENGEO, 2023). However, runoff from the surrounding Jordan Ranch and Positano developments drain to hard -lined storm drain piping systems that ultimately drain west to the 84-inch storm drain main that flows south within the Fallon Road right of -way. The 84-inch storm drain main was built within the Positano Development and sized to convey the storm runoff flows from the fully developed communities of both Jordan Ranch and Positano. Therefore, the historical watershed of the creek channel is much smaller in the present day than prior to the development of the projects in the upper watershed. However, base flows have increased due to existing subdrains that discharge subsurface water, resulting from dry weather runoff from those projects, into the creek channel creating nearly perennial low -flow conditions which are ideal for riparian habitat enhancement in the lower reach within the Site. ENGEO's Hydrologic Water Availability Analysis provides further discussion on these estimated dry weather flows (ENGEO, 2023). 1.2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND HISTORICAL CONDITIONS At the upstream limit of the GH PacVest Property, an existing approximately 410 linear foot, 48-inch culvert currently conveys drainage in the creek channel southward to a drainage ditch that runs immediately to the east of Fallon Road (along Old Fallon Road/Croak Road). Flows continue southward in the drainage ditch another approximately 1,100 linear feet and enter an existing 24-inch culvert under Croak Road, where flows ultimately enter a 6-foot-by-5-foot box culvert under Fallon Road and drains to the west. Based on our review of several historical photographs from 1949 to the present day, the subject reach of Jordan Creek has historically traversed across open space from the hillsides of Dublin. The lower portion of the creek appeared to have been bisected by Old Fallon Road and redirected into a roadside channel along Old Fallon Road to flow south along the western edge of the GH PacVest Property. New Fallon Road was constructed circa 2007; however, the general planform of the creek has remained the same. ENGEO October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 984 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report We understand there have been roadside channel breaches during storm events beginning in 2007, which cause sheet flow to the east of the ditch in low-lying areas. Two main breach points have been observed at different storm events: a northern breach point south of the proposed Dublin Boulevard extension, and a southern breach point upstream of the existing Croak Road culvert. In 2007, the southern point was breached, and in 2011 and 2015, the northern point was breached; the southern point, which may have been repaired, was not impacted. A breach repair was performed in 2017 at the northern point where the northern end of the ditch was excavated, and a berm was constructed to redirect flows to the roadside channel. The northern breach repair impacted the southern breach point, causing the wetland complex to shift south, and breaching at the south point was observed in 2022. Additional ditch maintenance was complete in October 2022, which included removing sediment to restore flow and replacing the failed culvert under Croak Road. Based on our site reconnaissance performed on August 23, 2023, we observed base flows in the channel, approximately 2 inches deep, within the existing Jordan Creek channel. We observed the reach of channel that is upstream of Old Fallon Road as having a low flow channel with an approximately 1-foot-wide bottom, approximately 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes, and roughly 1 foot in depth. The total width of the channel (including low flow channel and adjacent floodplains) is approximately 35 feet upstream of Old Fallon Road. The low -flow channel in this reach is moderately sinuous, as it appears to meander within a wider floodplain approximately % on either side of the centerline of the greater 35-foot-wide floodplain as shown in Photo 1.2-1 below. PHOTO 1.2-1: Typical conditions of Jordan Creek immediately upstream of Site. Meandering low -flow channel within wider floodplain section. We observed the reach of channel that is downstream of the Dublin Boulevard alignment as having a low flow channel with an approximately 3-foot-wide bottom, approximately 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes, and roughly 1-foot in depth. The total width of the channel (including low flow channel and adjacent floodplains) is approximately 8 feet, downstream of ENGEO Page 1 2 October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 — Expect Excellence - 985 Bay West Development 4663.110.007 GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report Dublin Boulevard. In this reach the channel has been graded in this location, as noted above, and, therefore, does not necessarily contain geomorphic characteristics of a natural channel. PHOTO 1.2-2: Typical conditions of Jordan Creek (roadside channel) adjacent to existing Fallon Road downstream of the Dublin Boulevard alignment. Little sinuosity in low -flow channel and narrow overall cross section. 1.3 PURPOSE This report presents the results of design analyses for the portion of Jordan Creek upstream and adjacent to Old Fallon Road and Croak Road. For this study, we evaluated the current hydrologic conditions and the proposed new creek alignment to restore the currently culverted channel beneath Croak Road. The project intends to remove a portion of the historical Old Fallon Road alignment north of Dublin Boulevard on the western project boundary, and daylight a historical creek channel that is currently underground in a storm drain system. The open channel will continue to the Dublin Boulevard alignment (Upper Reach, Figure 1). The channel will then be culverted under Dublin Boulevard, where it will then outlet to an open channel (Middle Reach, Figure 1) and culverted at the Fallon Gateway Project Entry alignment. After the culvert, the open channel will continue parallel to Fallon Road (Lower Reach, Figure 1) before finally connecting to an existing culver near the Croak Road and Fallon Road intersection. ENGEO October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 986 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report The channel is intended to convey flows originating from upgradient areas including the Jordan Ranch and Positano residential developments, through the GH PacVest Property, and to the outfall. The project will dedicate an approximately 50-foot-wide strip of land to accommodate the new open channel. This channel is intended to receive mitigation credit for other project water features that may be filled in as a result of the project, in order to receive clearance from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). This report and the accompanying figure present a concept -level design for the creek channel mitigation. The channel must be monitored for 5 years after the restoration and construction of the creek channel. If, during this time, additional restoration or stabilization work is needed based on observed conditions, additional revisions to the creek mitigation construction and restoration may need to be performed. Any future revisions to the creek restoration design are beyond our present scope of services. 1.4 PROJECT GOALS The intent of the recommendations herein follows. 1. Recreate, to the maximum extent, a creek channel with geomorphic characteristics similar to other creeks in the area with a low flow channel, floodplain, and bed slope in order to equilibrate sediment transport through the reach. 2. Maintain up to the 100-year flow within the channel. 3. Enhance the habitat values of the creek where practicable. For this reach of creek, replanting of vegetation will be required after removal of Old Fallon Road. Plants will be replaced with a robust and appropriate native plant palette. Ultimately, the root architecture of the plant species will provide protection against excessive erosion. 4. Install a new 48-inch-diameter culvert beneath the future extension of Dublin Boulevard, anticipated to be furnished with a headwall and wingwalls at both the inlet and outlet. 5. Install a new 48-inch-diameter culvert beneath the Fallon Gateway Project Entry, anticipated to be furnished with a headwall and wingwalls at both the inlet and outlet. The diameter of the culverts is intended to be consistent with the existing 48-inch culvert at the outfall of the creek channel near Croak Road. 6. Stabilize the culvert inlets and outlets with rock riprap where erosion potential exists, due to contraction and expansion. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS MacKay & Somps conducted a hydrologic study for Jordan Creek, which indicates a watershed area of 89.9 acres, as delineated in Appendix A (MacKay & Somps, 2022). MacKay & Somps also provided us with their HEC-HMS model for the larger project development, which indicates a 100-year peak discharge rate of 56 cubic feet per second (cfs). ENGEO October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 987 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report 2.2 GEOMORPHIC ANALYSIS The project intends to daylight the existing creek channel north of the future Dublin Boulevard alignment and to provide a more natural creek corridor south of the alignment that may mimic more historical conditions. On the basis of our geomorphic reconnaissance, we recommend providing a minimum total cross -sectional width of 35 feet for the recreated channel in the upper reach and mimicking similar low flow channel dimensions and overbank floodplains as currently formed in stable areas upstream. The low flow channel may be graded in the middle of the larger floodplain for design purposes; however, we expect the low flow will eventually reach an equilibrium slope similar to the existing condition, and meander through the proposed 35-foot cross-section. This should allow the low flow channel to form its own pool and riffle system. For the upper reach, we recommend the ultimate condition having a created floodplain with an approximate bed slope of 0.009 ft/ft and a low flow channel reaching an ultimate equilibrium slope at approximately 0.0075 ft/ft within the created floodplain. Exhibit 2.2-1 shows typical cross -sectional geometry, with the results of 100-year hydraulic modeling discussed in Section 2.3. EXHIBIT 2.2-1: Typical Cross Section Upstream of Proposed Dublin Boulevard 16' 100-YR W.S. E 3' 16' 0.46' South of the Dublin Boulevard alignment, we expect hydrologic conditions to be very similar to the upper reach of creek. However, the bed slope of the low flow channel will be slightly flatter to match the existing topography of the valley floor. Since perennial base flows are likely the major cause of the width of the low flow channel formation in this area, we recommend mimicking the 3-foot bottom width of the existing low flow channel dimensions in this area and leaving the cross -sectional area to mimic the floodplain in the upper reach. The ultimate condition in this reach should have both a low flow and floodplain with a bed slope of approximately 0.0075 ft/ft. Exhibit 2.2-2 shows typical cross -sectional geometry with the results of 100-year hydraulic modeling discussed in Section 2.3. ENGEO Page 15 October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 988 Bay West Development 4663.110.007 GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report EXHIBIT 2.2-2: Typical Cross Section Downstream of Proposed Dublin Boulevard 1 2 15' 100-YR W.S.E 1L 5' 4 3' 15' V 0.43' 1' i 2.3 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS A preliminary hydraulic analysis for the proposed creek condition (see Exhibits 2.2-1 and 2.2-2, Section 2.2) was performed using the HEC-RAS Version 6.4.1 computer program published by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). HEC-RAS performs one- and two-dimensional (2D) hydraulic analyses for natural channels to calculate water surface profiles and velocities. A 2D hydraulic analysis was prepared for the proposed channel condition, which included grading an alignment with a low flow channel and floodplain to convey the 100-year flowrate. The proposed low flow channel was designed to match the existing low flow channel geometry as observed from our site reconnaissance. The floodplain width for the proposed channel was determined by maintaining a minimum total channel width of 35 feet. Two 48-inch-diameter culverts were included in the model at Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Gateway Project Entry to convey flow beneath the proposed Dublin Boulevard extension and project entrance across from the existing Fallon Gateway. The hydraulic model is based on `normal depth' boundary conditions, whereby HEC-RAS calculates an initial water surface profile based on the bed slope of the creek. Estimated bed slopes for the creek of 0.009 ft/ft at the upstream end and 0.0075 ft/ft at the downstream end were used as boundary conditions for computational purposes. The value of the Manning's roughness coefficient (n) establishes frictional resistance in the channel and is thus related to the modeling of channel velocity and water surface profile by the HEC-RAS program. Based on visual observation of the current channel and overbank conditions, an `n' value was selected that typified the hydraulic roughness created by vegetation and other factors encountered throughout the study reach. This value is based on recommended minimum, maximum, and normal values developed for a variety of vegetative and morphological conditions similar to those found in the channel and banks of the study creek. The proposed Jordan Creek channel bottom is relatively clean and straight, with no rifts or deep pools. This is represented by a Manning's `n'value of 0.03 for channel roughness (Chow, 1959). A 100-year flowrate of 56 cfs was input at the upstream end of the channel. ENGEO October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 989 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report 2.4 CHANNEL INPUTS Based on our geomorphic recommendations, the following channel geometry were input into the model. Upstream of Proposed Dublin Boulevard • 1 foot base width • 1 H:1 V side slopes • 1 foot depth • 16 feet of floodplain on both sides of the low flow channel • 0.9% longitudinal slope for floodplain, Downstream of Proposed Dublin Boulevard • 3 foot base width • 1 H:1 V side slopes • 1 foot depth • 15 feet of floodplain on both sides of the low flow channel • 0.75% longitudinal slope Using the proposed dimensions shown in Exhibits 2.2-1 and 2.2-2, and two 48-inch-diameter culverts at the proposed Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Gateway Project Entry alignment, the 100-year flow is contained within the proposed channel. Flood depths above the floodplain level are estimated to be between 0.4 and 0.5 foot during the 100-year flood event. The proposed channel alignment and typical cross sections are provided in Figure 1. Velocities for the 100-year flow vary between 3 and 3.5 feet per second (fps) in the low flow channel, and between 1.5 and 3 fps along the floodplains, as shown in Exhibit 2.4-1. At the culvert inlets, velocities drop to between 0.5 and 1.0 fps due to backwater effects. EXHIBIT 2.4-1: Velocity Heat Map for 100-year Flowrate ENGEO Page l7 October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 990 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report 2.5 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT/EROSION The proposed bank material will consist of on -site earth materials, which typically consists of sandy to silty clay. According to research published by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which provides erosion threshold guidance for flood control channels, the allowable mean velocity for a channel consisting of grass -lined clay soil is approximately 8 feet per second. Based on the results of the velocity analysis, it does not appear that excess erosion would occur in this reach based on the soil types. Sediment transport of fine sediments generally occurs as wash load during large storm events, and low flow channel velocities generally in the 2 to 3 fps would transport these small particle sizes based on our local experience. We therefore opine that sediment deposition should also not be a concern based on the velocity analysis. Rip -rap protection should be placed at the inlets and outlets of the proposed 48-inch-diameter culverts to address contraction and expansion scour. Based on guidelines from the Georgia Stormwater Design Manual, we recommend constructing riprap aprons of a minimum of 20 linear feet downstream and upstream of the culvert installation. The rock riprap should extend laterally up to the 100-year water surface elevation. The aprons should be constructed of a 1.5-foot-thick Caltrans 200-Ib riprap underlain by a 6-oz minimum filter fabric at both the inlet and outfall of the culvert. Rock removed from the channel may be used as an equivalent if it meets the 200-Ib Caltrans specification for size, durability, and hardness. 3.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Maintenance for the project will be performed by the Project Applicant pursuant to a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and Management Plan (to be developed by the Project Applicant, and approved by regulatory agencies). The following schedule for monitoring and maintenance is recommended. The schedule may be modified as needed when conditions change in order to fulfill the overall creek maintenance goals. Monitoring visits should be performed according to the following schedule: TABLE 3.0-1: Monitoring Schedule SCHEDULE MONITORING TYPE Annually in May Channel and Bank Monitoring; Sediment Movement; Energy Dissipation Structures; Vegetation Performance; Longitudinal Profile; Debris Accumulation. After any storm greater or equal to the 10-year rainfall event, as defined by Alameda criteria for the Dublin area (a storm event generating approximately 3.19-inches of rainfall in each 24-hour period). Channel and Bank Monitoring; Energy Dissipation Structures; Sediment Movement; Vegetation Performance; Longitudinal Profile; Debris Accumulation. The following table summarizes the monitoring tasks, which should be performed at each scheduled monitoring event. ENGEO Page 18 October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 991 Bay West Development 4663.110.007 GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report TABLE 3.0-2: Monitoring Tasks AREA MONITORING TASK PERFORMANCE STANDARD REMEDIAL ACTIONS Channel Performance and Longitudinal Profile Monitor evidence of bed incision, which includes documenting any kn ickpoi nts/headcuts and the initiation and/or growth of gullies The longitudinal profile of the creek system should remain fairly consistent, without excessive scour, erosion or deposition. The longitudinal slope should be maintained between outfall structures. Any significant deviation in the channel slope should be reported and addressed by maintenance as necessary. Bank Performance The banks should be observed for obvious signs of vertical or horizontal displacements, seepage or erosion caused by high creek levels or levels in adjacent detention structures. Significant displacement, seepage or erosion should not occur along the channel banks. Any excessive slope displacement, seepage or erosion should be reported and addressed by maintenance as necessary. Both an engineering geologist and a geotechnical engineer should be consulted on significant bank repairs. Rock Energy Dissipation Structures Dissipation structures should be observed for structural integrity and stability including the extent of any erosion taking place around the edges of the rock aprons, as well as immediately downstream of the rock installations. Structures should remain in the approximate locations and configurations originally constructed. Any excessive slope displacement, seepage or erosion should be reported and addressed by maintenance as necessary. Both an engineering geologist and a geotechnical engineer should be consulted on significant bank repairs. Sediment Movement Vegetation Performance Debris Accumulation Monitor evidence of excessive deposition in channel including active channel depth to width ratios. Creek channel and banks should be monitored for obstructing vegetation. Creek channel and banks should be monitored for obstructing trash or debris. The channel width: depth ratio is to be monitored for changes that could affect the creek function. No vegetation should obstruct flow in the creek areas. No trash or debris should obstruct flow in the creek areas. Any excessive deposition or erosion in the creek channel causing channel width: depth ratio to change by more than 10 percent should be reported and addressed by maintenance as necessary. Geotechnical engineer should be consulted on significant channel repairs. Portions of vegetation that are obstructing channel flow should be trimmed or removed as necessary to allow creek function for conveying storm runoff at the direction of the project biologist. Trash and other undesirable debris obstructing flow should be removed from the creek areas. ENGEO Page I9 October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 992 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report 4.0 CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion that if the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction, the impact of the erosional and sedimentation processes as well as flooding issues associated with Jordan Creek will be reduced. Moreover, the addition of floodplain terraces throughout the reach will enhance the biological value of wetland habitat in the Jordan Creek channel. We recommend that an ENGEO representative observe all phases of the construction for conformance with our recommendations described herein. 5.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to developers, contractors, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers for the project so that the necessary steps can be taken by the contractors and subcontractors to carry out such recommendations in the field. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions. The professional staff of ENGEO Incorporated strives to perform its services in a proper and professional manner with reasonable care and competence but is not infallible. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in land development. We are unable to eliminate all risks; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our work. This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of preparation of ENGEO's work. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reuse without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document's applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time. Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes to ENGEO's work. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO's scope of services does not include on -site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims, including, but not limited to claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies, or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. ENGEO Page 1 10 October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 993 Bay West Development GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek 4663.110.007 Jordan Creek Geomorphic Basis of Design Report SELECTED REFERENCES Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. 2018. Alameda County Hydrology & Hydraulics Manual; 2018. ENGEO. 2023. Hydrologic Water Availability Analysis, GH PacVest Property Mitigation Creek. Project No. 11134.000.004. September 7, 2023. Georgia Stormwater Manual. 2007. Energy Dissipation, April 2007. Mackay & Somps. 2022. Technical Memorandum; Hydrology and Hydraulics Calculations for Ditch Re -Grading. March 15, 2022. Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Second Edition, Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1996. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Hydraulic Stability of Natural Channels EM 1110 2-1418, 1994.United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); Flood Control Engineering Manual. Ven Te Chow. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics; 1959. ENGEO October 11, 2023 Latest Revision October 20, 2023 Expect Excellence - 994 FIGURE FIGURE 1: CHANNEL ALIGNMENT AND CROSS SECTIONS AA G COPYRIGHT 0 2023 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAT NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANT MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED OR EXCERPTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED. 400 Square Feet Rip Rap Apron Proposed 48-inch-diameter Culvert with Headwall and Wingwalls at Inlet and Outlet roposeo' Middle Reach: 572 Lineal Feet 16' 100-Year W.S.E 2 AV- 16' 7 0.46' i1iT. SECTION A -A' (TYPICAL UPSTREAM OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD) 400 Square Feet NO SCALE Rip Rap Apron Proposed 48-inch-diameter Culvert with Headwall and Wingwalls at Inlet and Outlet 15' 100-Year W.S.E 400 Square Feet 2 Rip Rap Apron Lower Reach: 311 Lineal Feet Connect Channel to Existing 24-inch-diameter Culvert 0 5' 15' 0.43' /1. t SECTION B-B(TYPICAL DOWNSTREAM OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD) NO SCALE EXPLANATION ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE Channel Flowline Channel Limits B' 140 FEET BASE MAP SOURCE: MACKAY & SOUPS, 2023 AL Cross Section Location ENGEO —Expect Excellence — CHANNEL ALIGNMENT AND CROSS SECTIONS JORDAN CREEK GEOMORPHIC BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA PROJECT no, 4663.110.007 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: CRH FIGURE NO. 1 CHECKED BY: JDB ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR 996 APPENDIX A MACKAY & SOMPS, HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS JORDAN CREEK WATERSHED nn7 y3YtiiS\., S, Ja 4.I4_ • ; 4 sa RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF CALCULATION 10 YEAR STORM O=CIA C=0.3 I=1.03)IN/HR): A=89.9 ACRES O=CIA 0=0.3*1.03*89.9 0=27.8 CPS = RAINFALL INTENSITY VALUE OBTAINED PER THE ALAMEDA COUNTY HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS MANUAL 2018, ATTACHMENT 7, 'RAINFALL INTENSITY - 10 YEAR STORM' USING THE FOLLOWING: • TIME OF CONCENTRATION, TC=30 MIN • MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, MAP-16.0 (PER ATTACHMENT 6, 'MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION TABLE OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS MANUAL 2018) LEGEND --- EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE WATERSHED AREA = 89.9 ACRES SHEET 02 OF 0 GH PACVEST EXISTING DITCH WATERSHED MAP MACKAY & COMPS —Pam— marz CALK) A Hal 998 ENGEO Expect Excellence 999 www.engeo.com City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix H Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 1000 CHEN AND ANDERSON PROPERTIES DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION Copyright © 2017 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. Submitted to Ms. Yang Zhang GH PacVest, LLC 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 Prepared by ENGEO Incorporated January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 Project No. 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 ENGEO Expect Excellence 4AAA ENGEO Expect Excellence — GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Project No. 4663.110.005 4663.110.006 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 Ms. Yang Zhang GH PacVest, LLC 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 375 San Ramon, CA 94583 Subject: Chen and Anderson Properties Dublin, California PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION Dear Ms. Zhang: ENGEO prepared this preliminary geotechnical report for the Chen and Anderson Properties as outlined in our agreement dated December 15, 2016. We characterized the subsurface conditions at the site to provide the enclosed preliminary geotechnical considerations for planning and preliminary design of the project. Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the preliminary design geotechnical engineering firm to perform final design, review the project plans and specifications and provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. Please let us know when working drawings are nearing completion, and we will be glad to discuss these additional services with you. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated Josef To•tle, GE 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250 • San Ramon, CA 94583 • (925) 866-9000 • Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com 1002 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Letter of Transmittal TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION 1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 FINDINGS 2 2.1 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION 2 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION 2 2.2.1 Cone Penetration Tests 3 2.3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW AND INTERPRETATION 3 3.0 GEOLOGY 3 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING 3 3.2 GEOLOGIC MAPPING 4 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Qaf and Qaf2) 4 3.2.2 Colluvium (Qc) and Surface soils 4 3.2.3 Alluvium (Qha and Qpa) 4 3.2.4 Tassajara Green Valley Group (Tgvt) 4 3.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 5 3.4 SURFACE CONDITIONS 5 3.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 3.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 6 3.7 LABORATORY TESTING 7 4.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 7 4.1 EXISTING FILL 7 4.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL 7 4.3 COMPRESSIBLE/HEAVING SOILS 8 4.4 LANDSLIDES 8 4.5 FLOODING 8 4.6 SEISMIC HAZARDS 8 4.6.1 Ground Rupture 9 4.6.2 Ground Shaking 9 4.6.3 Liquefaction 9 4.6.4 Ground Lurching 10 4.7 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL 11 4.8 EXCAVATABILITY 12 4.9 STATIC AND PERCHED GROUNDWATER 12 4.10 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 12 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 13 5.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING 13 5.2 ACCEPTABLE FILL 14 5.3 SLOPES 14 5.3.1 Gradients 14 5.3.2 Fill Placed on Existing Slopes 14 ENGEO Expect Excellence i of ii January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1003 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.4 REMEDIAL GRADING PLANS 14 6.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 15 7.0 SLABS -ON -GRADE 16 7.1 INTERIOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS 16 7.1.1 Non -Expansive Fill 16 7.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK 16 8.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 16 8.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS 16 8.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS 17 9.0 FUTURE DESIGN -LEVEL STUDIES 17 10.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 17 SELECTED REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDIX A — Cone Penetration Test Logs APPENDIX B — Laboratory Test Data APPENDIX C — Liquefaction Analysis ENGEO Expect Excellence ii of ii January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1004 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ENGEO prepared this preliminary geotechnical report for the initial planning process for development of the Chen and Anderson Properties in Dublin, California. We prepared this report as outlined in our agreement dated December 15, 2016. GH PacVest, LLC authorized ENGEO to conduct the following scope of services: • Review of aerial photographs and published geologic literature • Review of previous ENGEO investigations • Subsurface field exploration • Soil laboratory testing • Data analysis and conclusions • Report preparation We understand that at this time a conceptual site plan is not available. We therefore reviewed the City of Dublin's Land Use Map, dated October 6, 2015, for general intended site use. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their consultants for design of this project. In the event that any changes are made in the character, design or layout of the development, we must be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION Figure 1 displays a Site Vicinity Map. The overall study area contains approximately 184 acres, with the Chen Property containing approximately 135 acres and the Anderson Property containing approximately 49 acres. The overall study area is located south of the Jordan Ranch development, north of Interstate 580, east of Fallon Road, and west of lightly developed or undeveloped parcels. The Chen and Anderson Properties are separated by a north -south section of Croak Road. Figure 2 shows site boundaries, proposed land use based on the City of Dublin's Land Use Map, geologic mapping based on our field exploration activities, and our exploration locations. The majority of the overall study area is undeveloped and covered by seasonal vegetation. Several barn, shed, and dwelling structures, as well as unpaved roads, occupy the southwestern portion of the Anderson Property. At the time of our exploration, the Chen Property was being used for cattle grazing. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION At this time, site development planning is in the preliminary stages. We anticipate that future development will include preparation of level building pads and roadways. Based on the current site topography, we anticipate that future site grading will include maximum cut depths of about 50 to 80 feet and maximum fill thicknesses of approximately 90 feet. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 11 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1005 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration As shown in Figure 2, proposed land use for the Chen and Anderson Properties are as follows: Chen Property • General commercial • Campus office • Medium- to high -density residential • Open space • Parks/public recreation Anderson Property • General commercial • Campus office • Medium- to high -density residential • Open space We anticipate that buildings for commercial, campus office, and medium- to high -density residential will generally be between two to five stories in height, while structures within the open space and parks/public recreation area will be between one to two stories in height. We also anticipate the future development will include construction of paved streets, parking, underground utilities, retaining walls, concrete flatwork, swimming pools, and detention basins. Once the conceptual site plan is made available, we should revisit our preliminary conclusions and recommendations to confirm that they remain valid and/or provide supplemental recommendations as necessary. 2.0 FINDINGS 2.1 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION We previously performed a preliminary geotechnical exploration for a larger study area that included the Chen and Anderson properties in 2003. As part of our 2003 exploration activities, we advanced two borings within the Chen Property to between 211/2 and 361/2 feet below ground surface. The approximate locations of the previous explorations are shown on Figure 2. 2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration included performing 11 Cone Penetration Test (CPTs) at various locations throughout the overall study location. Seven CPTs were performed at the Chen Property and four CPTs were performed at the Anderson Property. We also performed geologic field mapping for the overall study location. The location of our explorations shown on Figure 2 are approximate and were estimated using consumer -grade GPS equipment; the locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. rNGEO Expect Excellence January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1006 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration 2.2.1 Cone Penetration Tests We retained a CPT track rig to push the cone penetrometer to a maximum depths between 12 and 74 feet. The CPT has a 20-ton compression -type cone with a 15-square-centimeter (cm2) base area, an apex angle of 60 degrees, and a friction sleeve with a surface area of 225 cm2. The cone, connected with a series of rods, is pushed into the ground at a constant rate. Cone readings are taken at approximately 5-cm intervals with a penetration rate of 2 cm per second in accordance with ASTM D-5778. Measurements include the tip resistance to penetration of the cone (Qc), the resistance of the surface sleeve (Fs), and pore pressure (U). CPT logs are presented in Appendix A. 2.3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW AND INTERPRETATION As part of our study, we reviewed stereo -paired aerial photographs covering the site dating back to 1939. The purpose of the aerial photograph review was to observe geomorphic features indicative of landsliding and faulting and to supplement geologic reconnaissance mapping at the site. The results of our aerial photography interpretation were incorporated into the geologic mapping shown on Figure 2. We also reviewed aerials available at www.historicaerials.com. By 1949, agricultural activities are visible on both the Chen and Anderson properties. Structures are visible within the Chen Property immediately east of the current Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road intersection. Structures within the Anderson Property are visible east of the north -south portion of Croak Road. The drainage feature that borders the northwest boundary of the Anderson Property and enters the Chen Property appears channelized. By 1958, additional structures are visible at the southeastern corner of the Chen Property. By 1979, Interstate 580 is visible, Croak Road appears in its current alignment, and the drainage in the southern portion of the Chen Property appears to be infilled. Quarrying activities within the northern portion of the Anderson Property are visible by 1987, and the site generally appears in its current configuration by 1993. 3.0 GEOLOGY 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The study area is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges are characterized by a series of northwest -trending valleys and mountain ranges. The bedrock in this region has been folded and faulted in a tectonic setting that is experiencing translational and compressional deformations of the earth's crust. As shown on Figure 3, the hill front along the northern portion of the site is mapped by Graymer (1996) as underlain by Plio-Pleistocene Livermore Gravels or nonmarine sedimentary units of the Tassajara Formation (QTI). Bedrock bedding is shown by Graymer and Crane generally striking northwest and dipping steeply (85 degrees) to the southwest. At the base of slopes crossing the middle of the site, Graymer maps transitional slopes (mid -level terraces) as Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits and Holocene floodplain deposits further south extending into the valley portion of the site. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 13 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1007 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration 3.2 GEOLOGIC MAPPING Surface geologic mapping based on photo review and site reconnaissance was performed as part of this study as depicted on Figure 2. Below are descriptions of the geologic units observed during mapping. 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Qaf and Qaf2) Artificial man-made fills were mapped in several portions of the site, predominately within the Anderson Parcel. Fills within the Anderson parcel (Qaf) are likely associated with quarry operations and existing structures, placed as stockpiles/spoils or underlying structures. As shown on Figure 2, a relatively narrow drainage crossing east -west within the Chen parcel appears to have been previously infilled. These fills are anticipated to consist of onsite material; however, organics content and presence of vegetative and/or construction debris is unknown. The northern portion of the Chen parcel abuts the Jordan Ranch development. On Figure 2, an engineered fill slope is mapped in this vicinity (Qaf2). This fill slope is considered documented fill that has been moisture condition and compacted as part of site development. 3.2.2 Colluvium (Qc) and Surface soils Based on our experience in the area, surface soils at the site are typically mantled with moderately expansive clayey soils derived from weathering of the underlying poorly indurated bedrock. The thickness of surficial soils is typically less than 4 feet on upland peaks and ridges. Deposits of colluvium consist of transported surficial soils that have accumulated in the low-lying portions of the site such as swales and base of hillslopes. These deposits are identified on Figure 2 as colluvium (Qc). In general, the deposits of colluvium in site swales should is anticipated to range from 5 to 20 feet thick. Based on our previous work in the site vicinity, colluvial deposits at the site are likely overconsolidated and moderately compressible. 3.2.3 Alluvium (Qha and Qpa) Alluvial deposits mapped at the site are divided into Holocene floodplain deposits (Qha) and Pleistocene fan deposits (Qpa), as shown on Figure 2. Pleistocene fan deposits at the site are formed at the mouth of drainages and appear as a mid -level terrace adjacent to the valley portion of the site. These deposits are anticipated to consist of generally stiff clays with interbedded sands, gravel and silts. The Holocene flood plain deposits at the site make up the valley along the southern portion of the site. These deposits generally consist of fine-grained clays and silts intermixed with gravelly clays. 3.2.4 Tassajara Green Valley Group (Tgvt) Bedrock exposures were observed within the northern portion of the Anderson Parcel. Quarry operations have exposed bedrock features that are depicted on Figure 2. The bedrock consists of interbedded terrestrial pebbly sandstone, siltstone and claystone. Sandstone beds may vary in strength do to cementation. Pebbly sandstones within the quarry site were observed to be poorly cemented; however, cemented sandstone beds are common within the (Tgvt) formation. From ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 1 4 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1008 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration previous work in the area, including the adjacent Jordan Ranch Development, claystone beds are likely to have a moderate to high expansion potential. Bedding at the site was measured striking generally northwest and steeply dipping southwest from 72 to 77 degrees. 3.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults are mapped crossing the site. As shown on Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 6, a "blind" thrust fault trace is mapped by Crane (1995), Dibblee (1980) and Graymer (1996) crossing the property. This fault trace is not considered active by the State of California. According to Sawyer (1999), based on detailed creek drainage profiles, this feature may be a fold hinge scarp that has been accentuated by fluvial scour. The site does lie within a seismically active region. Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the San Francisco Bay Region, and larger earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. Figure 4 shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant historic earthquakes recorded within the San Francisco Bay Region. According to a search using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps spatial query, the nearest active fault is the Mount Diablo Thrust, which is located approximately 2 miles from the site. This fault is considered capable of a moment magnitude earthquake of 6.7. Other active faults are summarized in the table below: TABLE 3.3-1: Active Faults Capable of Producing Significant Ground Shaking at the Site FAULT NAME DISTANCE FROM SITE MAXIMUM MOMENT (MILES) MAGNITUDE* Calaveras 4.8 7.0 Greenville Connected 7.1 7.0 Hayward -Rodgers Creek 11.4 7.3 Green Valley Connected 15.6 6.8 Great Valley 17.6 6.9 San Andreas 30.3 7.9 * Ellsworth 3.4 SURFACE CONDITIONS Site topography consists of rolling, grass -covered hills generally increasing in elevation to the north. Site drainage is to the south, toward Arroyo Las Positas and the Livermore Valley. Most of the study area consists of open, undeveloped land with local improvements related to agricultural or residential use. These improvements include barns, sheds, and dwellings as well as unpaved roadways, driveways, and utilities. We observed the following site features during our reconnaissance: Chen Property • A seasonal drainage swale runs along the western boundary of the site, and appears to terminate at the southwest corner of the site. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 15 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1009 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration • A formerly unlined channelized drainage feature runs along the eastern boundary of the site. Approximately 1,000 feet from the southern border, the portion of the channelized drainage feature that runs east -west appears to be infilled. • A graded slope separates the site from a portion of the Jordan Ranch development to the north. • Overhead transmission lines run east -west roughly parallel with the base of the foothills and along the eastern border of the site. Anderson Property • Two stockpiles of soil, presumably from previous quarrying activities to the north of the site, are located to the north and east of the shed, barn, and dwelling structures. Unmaintained gravel roads and trees are also in the vicinity of the structures. • An unmaintained dirt road provides access to the northern portion of the site, where quarrying activities have lowered grades by a maximum of approximately 80 to 90 feet. At the time of our exploration, we observed some areas of ponded water within the quarry site. • Overhead transmission lines run along the southern border of the site. Please refer to the Site Plan, Figure 2, for more information on site features. 3.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Chen Property • According to the soil type correlations, at 1-CPT1 through 1-CPT4, which were located at the northern portion of the site, the CPTs encountered varying thicknesses of stiff to very stiff silt, silty clay, clay, clayey silt, and sandy silt to the terminus depth of the explorations. • According to the soil type correlations, at 1-CPT5 through 1-CPT7, which were located at the southern portion of the site, the CPTs encountered predominantly silt, with interbedded layers of clayey silt, sandy silt, silty sand, and sand up to two feet in thickness. Anderson Property • According to the soil type correlations, 1-CPT1 through 1-CPT3, which were located at the northern portion of the site, the CPTs encountered varying thicknesses of stiff to very stiff clayey silt, silt clay, and silt to the terminus depth of the explorations. • According to the soil type correlations, 1-CPT4 predominantly encountered varying thicknesses of medium stiff -to -stiff clayey silt and silt, with interbedded layers of sandy silt, silty sand, and sand up to 4 feet in thickness. 3.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS We observed static groundwater in several of our subsurface explorations. We summarize our observations in the table below: NGEO Expect Excellence January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1010 GH PacVest, LLC 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Chen and Anderson Properties Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration TABLE 3.6-1: Groundwater Observations APPROX. DEPTH TO PROPERTY EXPLORATION LOCATION GROUNDWATER (FEET) Chen 1-CPT4 26 1-CPT5 15* 1-CPT7 161,6* Anderson 1-CPT2 28 *Inferred from pore pressure dissipation test results We did not observe static groundwater in the remaining subsurface explorations. Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practice, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made. 3.7 LABORATORY TESTING We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering properties. For this project, we performed plasticity index, grain size, hydrometer, and water-soluble sulfate testing. Laboratory data is included in Appendix B. 4.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS The primary geotechnical concerns that could affect development on the site are existing fill, expansive soil, compressible/heaving soils, and liquefaction -induced settlements. We summarize our conclusions below. 4.1 EXISTING FILL Our field reconnaissance and aerial photography review indicate that portions of the site are underlain by artificial fill. Artificial fills (non -engineered) fills can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. Additionally, artificial fills may contain undesired vegetative debris and/or construction debris. We recommend that existing fills at the site be completely removed and free of debris prior to placement as moisture conditioned and recompacted engineered fill. Please refer to Figure 2 for areas that have been mapped as underlain by non -engineered fill. 4.2 EXPANSIVE SOIL Throughout the site we observed potentially expansive lean clay and fat clay near the surface. Our laboratory testing indicates that these soils exhibit moderate to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. Expansive soils change in volume with changes in moisture. They can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs -on -grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e. by ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 17 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1011 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using footings at normal shallow depths but bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential. In addition to the above considerations during design of foundations, successful performance of structures on expansive soils requires special attention during construction. It is imperative that exposed soils be kept moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction. It can be difficult to remoisturize clayey soils without excavation, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. 4.3 COMPRESSIBLE/HEAVING SOILS While preliminary subsurface data developed for this report suggests that the alluvial and colluvial clays are relatively stiff and not highly compressible, the extent of planned fills are not known at this time. Large fill thicknesses can be expected to cause settlement of the underlying soil, as well as settlement within the fill itself due to its own weight. Alternatively, large cuts may subject the underlying soil to heaving. Significant building loads may also induce settlement of the underlying soil. For planning purposes, we anticipate that structures that have an overall building load of 1.500 to 2,000 pounds per square feet (psf) would experience less than 2 inches of total settlement, and 1 inch of differential settlement over 50 feet due to load -induced settlement. For lighter structures with a maximum overall building load of less than 750 psf, we anticipate less than 1 inch of total settlement, and % inch of differential settlement over 50 feet due to load -induced settlement. Compressibility/heaving should be re-evaluated once design cuts, fills, and building loads are available. 4.4 LANDSLIDES Based on regional landslide mapping by Nilsen (1975) shown in Figure 5, and our site reconnaissance mapping and aerial photograph review, there are no known landslides within the site with the exception of over steepened slopes within the quarry (Figure 2). Sliding within the Anderson parcel quarry can be described as surficial sloughing of over steepened bedrock exposures generally 1 to 5 feet thick. Since no significant landsliding in the remaining portions of the site was found, the risk is considered low. 4.5 FLOODING Based on site elevation and distance from water sources, flooding is not expected at the subject site; however, the Civil Engineer should review pertinent information relating to possible flood levels for the subject site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design measures for development of the project, if recommended. 4.6 SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, and ground lurching. The following sections present a discussion of these hazards as they apply to the site. Based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, lateral spreading, tsunamis, flooding or seiches is considered low to negligible at the site. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 18 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1012 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration 4.6.1 Ground Rupture Since there are no known active faults crossing the property and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, it is our opinion that ground rupture is unlikely. 4.6.2 Ground Shaking An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within [the San Francisco Bay] region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the shaking effects, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the latest California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a minimum. Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead -and -live loads. The code -prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well -designed and well -constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake (SEAOC, 1996). 4.6.3 Liquefaction We consider the conclusions within this section to be applicable to structures that are planned within the liquefaction hazard zones. Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded fine sands below the groundwater table. Empirical evidence indicates that low plasticity silt and clay are also potentially liquefiable, though this phenomenon is commonly referred to as cyclic softening; for the purpose of this report, we will refer to cyclic softening as liquefaction. When seismic ground shaking occurs, the soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses that can cause excess hydrostatic pressures to develop. Portions of both sites are located within a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction, as shown in Figure 7. We therefore advanced 1-CPT2, 1-CPT5, and 1-CPT6 within the mapped liquefaction zones. 1-CPT2, which is located at the northern portion of the Chen Property, predominantly encountered variable strata of silt, clay, silty clay, clayey silt, and sandy silt before transitioning to predominantly silt at approximately 21 feet bgs. 1-CPT5 and 1-CPT6, which are located at the southern portion of the overall study area, predominantly encountered silt, clayey silt, and sandy silt, with interbedded layers of sand and silty sand up to 3 feet thick. We evaluated the CPTs for triggering of liquefaction using an lc cut-off of 2.6; soil with an lc greater than this value are assumed to not be susceptible to liquefaction at this site. The lc value can be adjusted based on laboratory testing performed during a design -level study. In performing our ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 19 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1013 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration analysis, we also assumed a design groundwater level of 20 feet below existing grade for 1-CPT2 and 15 feet below existing grade for 1-CPT5 and 1-CPT6. We used the mapped maximum considered earthquake (MCE) geometric mean peak ground acceleration (PGAM) of 0.71g based on the 2013 California Building Code. We assumed a moment magnitude of 6.6 for our analyses to represent ground shaking on the controlling fault: the Mount Diablo Thrust fault zone. We utilized the software package CLiq version 1.7.6.34 by GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Software to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility from the CPT data. We performed our analysis using the methods outlined by Boulanger and Idriss (2014). The results of our analyses are presented in Appendix C, and estimated liquefaction -induced settlements are summarized below: TABLE 4.6.3-1: Summary of Liquefaction -Induced Settlement PROPERTY EXPLORATION LOCATION SETTLEMENT (inches) Chen 1-CPT2 4 1-CPT5 1-CPT6 1-CPT7 41/4 To address liquefaction -induced settlement, we recommend on a preliminary basis that improvements at the site include: • Founding buildings on relatively stiff foundations designed for a differential settlement of 2% inches of differential settlement over a distance of 50 feet due to liquefaction settlement. In our experience, since liquefaction is associated with the extreme MCE-level event, structural engineers typically design foundations allowing a larger amount of architectural distress when performing their design. • Providing flexible connections for building utilities that allow for 2'/4 inches of vertical movement without breaking. • Utilities on the project should be designed with either flexible materials or with flexible joints that allow the utility line to move at least 11/2 inches over a distance of 50 feet without breaking. Since this was a preliminary geotechnical exploration, we did not collect samples at depth for laboratory testing. During further design -level studies, we anticipate collecting samples at depth to perform additional laboratory tests. Based on laboratory testing, the lc cut-off may be adjusted. We therefore analyzed the CPTs assuming an lc cut-off of 2.5, and consequently found that 1-CPT2, 1-CPT5, and 1-CPT6 within the Chen Property would have a maximum total liquefaction - induced settlement of 13/4 inches. The corresponding differential settlements considered for design would be less than 1 inch. We therefore recommend that design -level studies incorporate a budget for laboratory testing at depth, which could result in significant cost savings for the overall project. 4.6.4 Ground Lurching Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker soils. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 1 10 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1014 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the site as in other locations in the Bay Area region. 4.7 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL As part of this study, we tested near -surface soil samples for determination of water-soluble sulfates. The results are included in Appendix B and summarized in the table below. TABLE 4.7-1: Corrosivity Test Results PROPERTY SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH SULFATE (% by mass)* Chen 1-CPT5 Surface ND 1-CPT6 Surface ND *ASTM C1580 The 2016 CBC references the 2014 American Concrete Institute Manual, ACI 318-14, Chapter 19, Sections 19.3.1 for structural concrete requirements. ACI Table 19.3.1.1 provides the following exposure categories and classes, and concrete requirements in contact with soil based upon the exposure risk. TABLE 4.7-2: ACI Table 4.2.1: Exposure Categories and Classes CATEGORY CLASS CONDITION F Freezing and thawing S Sulfate W In contact with water C Corrosion protection of reinforcement FO Concrete not exposed to freezing -and -thawing cycles F1 Concrete exposed to freezing -and -thawing cycles and occasional exposure to moisture F2 Concrete exposed to freezing -and -thawing cycles and in continuous contact with moisture F3 Concrete exposed to freezing -and -thawing cycles and in continuous contact with moisture and exposed to deicing chemicals WATER- SOLUBLE SULFATE IN SOIL % BY MASS* DISSOLVED SULFATE IN WATER MG/KG (PPM)** SO SO4 < 0.10 SO4 < 150 S1 0.10 <_ SO4< 0.20 150<_Sat <1,500 seawater S2 0.20<_Sat <2.00 1,500 <_ SO4 < 10,000 S3 SO4 > 2.00 SO4 > 10,000 CONDITION WO Concrete dry in service. Concrete in contact with water and low permeability is not required. W 1 Concrete in contact with water where low permeability is required. CO Concrete dry or protected from moisture C1 Concrete exposed to moisture but not to an external sources of chlorides Concrete exposed to moisture and an external source of chlorides from C2 deicing chemicals, salt, brackish water, seawater, or spray from these sources * Percent sulfate by mass in soil determined by ASTM C1580 **Concentration of dissolved sulfates in water in ppm determined by ASTM D516 or ASTM D4130 ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 111 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1015 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Considering a SO sulfate exposure, there is no requirement for cement type or water -cement ratio, however, a minimum concrete compressive strength of 2,500 psi is specified by the building code. It should be noted, however, that the structural engineering design requirements for concrete may result in more stringent concrete specifications. If desired to investigate this further, we recommend a corrosion consultant be retained to evaluate if specific corrosion recommendations are advised for the project. 4.8 EXCAVATABILITY Based on our experience in the site vicinity and bedrock exposures within the quarry, we anticipate that conventional grading equipment, such as a D-8 dozer, will likely be able to rip bedrock materials. Excavatability should be reevaluated during design level explorations. 4.9 STATIC AND PERCHED GROUNDWATER It does not appear that the static groundwater level beneath the site is likely to affect the proposed development. However, perched water can: 1. Impede grading activities. 2. Cause moisture damage to sensitive floor coverings. 3. Transmit moisture vapor through slabs causing excessive mold/mildew build-up, fogging of windows, and damage to computers and other sensitive equipment. 4. Cause premature pavement failure if hydrostatic pressures build up beneath the section. 4.10 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The 2016 CBC utilizes design criteria set forth in the 2010 ASCE 7 Standard. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, we characterized the site as Site Class D in accordance with the 2016 CBC. We provide the 2016 CBC seismic design parameters in tables below, which include design spectral response acceleration parameters based on the mapped Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration parameters. Due to the varying geologic conditions at the site, we classify the northern portions of both the Chen and Anderson Properties as Site Class C, and the southern portions as Site Class D. TABLE 4.10-1: 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters for Chen Property PARAMETER VALUE Site Class C* D** Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Ss (g) 1.927 1.871 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, Si (g) 0.618 0.606 Site Coefficient, FA 1.0 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.3 1.5 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMs (g) 1.927 1.871 _NGEO Expect Excellence January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1016 GH PacVest, LLC 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Chen and Anderson Properties Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration PARAMETER VALUE MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM1 (g) 0.804 0.909 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDs (g) Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SD1 (g) 1.285 0.536 1.247 0.606 Mapped MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.720 0.700 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.0 1.0 MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 0.720 0.700 Long period transition -period, TL 8 sec 8 sec *Latitude: 37.70745, -121.84612 **Latitude: 37.70253, -121.84606 TABLE 4.10-2: 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters for Anderson Property PARAMETER VALUE Site Class C* D** Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Ss (g) Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, Si (g) Site Coefficient, FA 1.956 0.625 1.905 0.610 1.0 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.3 1.5 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMs (g) 1.956 1.905 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM1 (g) 0.813 0.915 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDs (g) Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SD1 (g) 1.304 1.270 0.542 0.610 Mapped MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.731 0.712 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.0 1.0 MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 0.731 0.712 Long period transition -period, TL 8 sec 8 sec *Latitude: 37.70651, -121.84016 **Latitude: 37.70248, -121.84008 5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL SITE CLEARING Areas to be developed should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious materials, including existing building foundations, slabs, buried utility and irrigation lines, pavements, debris, and designated trees, shrubs, and associated roots. Excavations should be cleaned and backfilled with suitable material as compacted engineered fill. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 113 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1017 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Following clearing, strip the site to remove surface organic materials. Strip organics from the ground surface to a depth of at least 2 to 3 inches below the surface. Remove strippings from the site or, if considered suitable by the landscape architect and owner, use them in landscape fill. It may also be feasible to mulch organics in place, depending on the amount and type of vegetation present at the time of grading as well as the proposed mulching method. If desired, ENGEO can evaluate site vegetation at the time of grading to assess the feasibility of mulching organics in place. 5.2 ACCEPTABLE FILL Onsite soil and rock material is suitable as fill material provided it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material, debris, and particles greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension. On a preliminary basis, onsite soils compacted as engineered fill should be compacted to between 87 and 92 percent relative compaction (RC) at 5 percent over optimum moisture content in the upper 5 feet below finished grade. Below 5 feet of finished grade, onsite soils compacted as engineered fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent RC at 4 percent over optimum moisture content. Imported fill materials should meet the above requirements and have a plasticity index less than 12, and at least 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. 5.3 SLOPES 5.3.1 Gradients For planning purposes, major graded slopes should generally be inclined at 3:1 (horizontal:vertical). If desired, slopes can locally be inclined as steep as 2:1 between pads or at other locations to facilitate project land planning. However, slopes steeper than 3:1 should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis, so that appropriate geotechnical design recommendations can be provided. Depending on slope height and local conditions, construction of slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) could require selective grading with granular materials or reinforcement with geogrid. 5.3.2 Fill Placed on Existing Slopes We recommend keying and benching where fills are placed on original grade with a gradient of 6:1 or steeper. Benches should be cut into original grade after the key has been nearly filled and compacted as engineered fill. Benches should be constructed into original slope grade as filling proceeds to remove loose soil/rock. 5.4 REMEDIAL GRADING PLANS Due to the complex geology and hillside topography, we recommend that ENGEO be retained to prepare remedial grading plans for this project. This is important to clarify our geotechnical recommendations related to keyways, benches, cut/fill transition subexcavations, and subdrains. In preparing these plans, we intend to overlay the grading plans with graphic representations of ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 114 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1018 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration our grading and subsurface drainage recommendations presented in this report. This allows the unique hillside geotechnical recommendations to be clearly displayed on the grading plans. This can assist in obtaining more accurate earthwork bids as well as clarifying the geotechnical recommendations as they apply to the final grading plan. 6.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS For the above -discussed geotechnical hazards, the foundation systems for proposed structures may vary from shallow foundations consisting of conventional footings and post -tensioned (PT) mat slabs designed to withstand total and differential settlement, to deep foundations consisting of driven piles where settlements or site conditions exceed practical mitigation techniques. Ground improvement, such as drilled displacement columns may be necessary to reduce total and differential settlements to tolerable levels for shallow foundation performance depending on the building's tolerance for settlement. At this time, we opine that it is feasible to use shallow foundations for lightly- to moderately loaded structures that have a total building load of less than 2,000 psf. We anticipate that lightly- to moderately loaded residential structures may be founded on post -tensioned mat foundations, and moderately loaded commercial and retail structures may be founded on conventional footings and slab -on -grade. For planning purposes, a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for dead -plus -live loads may be used for footings. The bearing capacity can be increased by one-third for the short- term effects of wind or seismic loading. Minimum depths for footings should be 2 feet below lowest adjacent pad grade. As mentioned above, the foundations for structures with an overall building load of less than 800 psf should be able to tolerate up to 1 inch of total settlement due to static loading, and up to 4' inches of settlement due to liquefaction. Foundations for structures with an overall building load of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 psf should be able to tolerate up to 2 inches of settlement due to static loading from the building, and up to 4'/4 inches of settlement due to liquefaction. The differential settlement should be assumed to be approximately half of the total settlement over a distance of 50 feet. While liquefaction settlement should be added to the static settlement for the evaluation of seismic performance, the designer may wish to consider a larger amount of allowable architectural distress of the building under the settlement from liquefaction than from static loading. Further, a design -level study should collect samples at depth to determine a site -specific lc cut-off, which may be less than the cut-off of 2.6 that was used for this preliminary report. If differential settlement is considered excessive for the planned buildings, mitigation would likely need to be considered. We offer the following mitigation options in order of likely cost efficiency: • Structural mat foundation designed to tolerate the effects of differential settlement. The thickness of a structural mat would be dependent on required end use, building geometry, and structural design. • Drilled displacement columns under column and wall footings. For planning purposes, drilled displacement columns could be assumed to be 40 feet deep to make foundation settlement from liquefaction nominal. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 1 15 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1019 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration • Driven, precast, prestressed concrete piles. For planning purposes, we recommend assuming 60-foot-long, 14-inch-square piles for an allowable capacity of approximately 50 kips. This alternative would likely be the most costly alternative but would provide the least amount of potential settlement. In summary, depending on the tolerance of the buildings and intended building use, it may be feasible to found some or all of the buildings on conventional shallow foundations such as post - tensioned mat foundations and spread footings with slabs -on -grade. 7.0 SLABS -ON -GRADE 7.1 INTERIOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS 7.1.1 Non -Expansive Fill Due to the high expansion potential of the near -surface soils, we anticipate that interior floor slabs will be supported on non -expansive fill to reduce the likelihood of slab damage from heave or shrinkage. For a conventional 6-inch-thick slab, we anticipate between 18 to 24 inches of non -expansive fill. 7.2 EXTERIOR FLATWORK Exterior flatwork includes items such as concrete sidewalks, steps, and outdoor courtyards exposed to foot traffic only. Based on the City of Dublin Standard Plan, exterior flatwork should have a minimum section of 4 inches of concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base. 8.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 8.1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS Based on our experience in the area, we anticipate that R-value of the onsite soils will be 5 or less. Using estimated traffic indices for various pavement loading requirements, we developed the following recommended pavement sections using Topic 633 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (including the asphalt factor of safety), presented in the table below. TABLE 8.1-1: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections TRAFFIC INDEX SECTION ASPHALT CONCRETE (INCHES) CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (INCHES) 5 3 12 6 3.5 13 7 4 16 8 5 18 The civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic indices based on the estimated traffic loads and frequencies. rNGE0 Expect Excellence Page 1 16 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1020 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration 8.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS Final design of rigid pavement sections, and accompanying reinforcement, should be performed based on estimated traffic loads and frequencies. We anticipate the following minimum design sections for rigid pavements: • Use a minimum section of 4 to 6 inches of Portland Cement concrete over 6 to 10 inches of Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base. • Concrete pavement should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi. • Provide minimum control joint spacing in accordance with Portland Cement Association guidelines. 9.0 FUTURE DESIGN -LEVEL STUDIES Once the conceptual development layout has been determined and building types have been selected, further exploration will be necessary to verify that the geotechnical conditions are relatively consistent across the site and to develop design recommendations for site development. 10.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS This report presents preliminary geotechnical recommendations for planning of the improvements discussed in Section 1.3 for the Chen and Anderson Properties. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and preliminary recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in planning of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance. In addition, the preliminary conclusions and recommendations are subject to revision following completion of a design level exploration and geotechnical analysis. We strived to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently employed in the area; no warranty is expressed or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks or provide insurance; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services. This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation. We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data is representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site. Considering possible underground variability of soil, rock, stockpiled material, and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, notify ENGEO immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 1 17 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1021 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, flood potential, or a geohazard exploration. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, notify the proper regulatory officials immediately. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document's applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time. Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to ENGEO's documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO's scope of services does not include onsite construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. ENGEO Expect Excellence Page 1 18 January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1022 GH PacVest, LLC Chen and Anderson Properties 4663.110.005 and 4663.110.006 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration SELECTED REFERENCES Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2014, CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. California Building Code (CBC), 2016. Dibblee, T.W. Jr., 1980, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Livermore Quadrangle, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, Open File Report 80-533. Graymer, R.W., Jones, D.L., and Brabb, E.E., 1994, Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Alameda County, California: Open -File Report 96-252. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault rupture hazard in California: Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zone maps: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Nilsen, T.H., 1975, Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the Livermore 71/2' Quadrangle, Contra Costa County, California, USGS 75-277-26. SEAOC; Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary; 1996. ENGEO Expect Excellence January 23, 2017 Revised January 25, 2017 1023 FIGURES FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map FIGURE 2: Site Plan FIGURE 3: Regional Geologic Map - Graymer FIGURE 4: Regional Faulting and Siesmicity FIGURE 5: Regional Geologic Map — Nilsen FIGURE 6: Regional Geologic Map - Crane FIGURE 7: Seismic Hazard Zones Map 1024 0 FEET 2000 0 BASE MAP SOURCE: UNKNOWN METERS 1000 ENGEO Expect Excellence VICINITY MAP CHEN AND ANDERSON PROPERTY DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA FIGURE NO. 1 PROJECT NO.: 4663.110.006 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: LL (CHECKED BY: ,JSY G:\Drafting\DRAFTING2\_Dwg\4663\11O\GEX\4663110006—GEX—FIG1—VICMAP-0117.dwg Plot Date:1-24-17 (lee ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR 1025 � J ) Ir � � �.- - QTI 1C7 \U /1 <N_At_ w y w a CHEN PROPERTY ANDERSON PROPERTY i° I iciai Ai rporl } 0 0 EXPLANATION QU ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS (HOLOCENE) QTI LIVERMORE GRAVELS ( PLEISTOCENE AND/OR PLIOCENE) 0 FEET 2000 0 METERS 1000 BASE MAP SOURCE: GRAYMER BEDROCK MAP, 7996 ENGEO Expect Excellence REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP-GRAYMER CHEN AND ANDERSON PROPERTY DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 4663.110.006 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: LL 'CHECKED BY: JSY FIGURE NO. 3 G.\Drafting\DRAFTING2\—Dwg\4663\110\GEX\4663110006—GEX—FIG3-24DLMAP-0117. dwg Plot Dote.1-24—'7 ee ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR 1027 EXPLANATION REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 031Vd0.00N1 030 OD N3UIUM 553edX3 31-11 1noHom alde30%3 SO mono 3e 11 AVII eoN e3n30s1VNm SNV311 ANY AN lava NI No 310Nm NI a33naoed3e 3e 10N AVN 1N31111000 s1N0 030Ve0de00Nl 039N3 03 LIOL 0 1N91NAd0o 1028 WRITTEN CONSE NI"" A fD • 0 FEET 0 EXPLANATION N Qal Qt 2000 - METERS 1000 Q Q t BASE MAP SOURCE: NILSEN, 1975 LANDSLIDE DEPOSIT. ARROWS INDICATE GENERAL DIRECTION OF DOWNSLOPE MOVEMENT. QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN ALLUVIAL DEPOSIT ALLUVIAL TERRACE DEPOSIT. QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN COLLUVIAL DEPOSIT AND/OR SMALL ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSIT ARTIFICIAL FILL BEDROCK. QUERIED WHERE IDENTIFICATION UNCERTAIN QUARRY OR GRAVEL PIT GIC MAP - ENGEO REGIONALHEN AND ANNDEORSON PROPERTY SEN —Expect Excellence— DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 4663.110.006 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: LL G: \Drafting\DRAFTING2\_Dwg\4663\110\GEX\4663110006—GEX—FIG5—NILSENMAP-0117.dwg Plot Dote: 1-24-17 Ilee (CHECKED BY: ,JSY ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR FIGURE NO 1029 THOUT THE OR EXCERPTE 0 O a 5 2 0 Q = Z W CED IN WHOLE OR 0 0 z f 5 0 0 INC0RP0RA ado :II.I a :A . CHEN PROPERTY— . 2L4'L -- • 1 A r'rovo rANDERSON;PROPERTY • .Santa Rita ▪ ... iRebablhtalon Center .{f. Anne1~ " i • `'\ r.- j • S A. N::_... T Ai:;, :tj Sk:=ca. A M A D_..O R EXPLANATION FEET 2000 METERS 1000 BASE MAP SOURCE: CRANE, 1980 R I ▪ . • i. QM MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE GRAVELS QI PLEISTOCENE GRAVELS GEOLOGIC CONTACT (APPROXIMATE) RESISTANT BEDDING FAULT -v-v-v- THRUST FAULT, SAWTEETH ON UPPER PLATE ANTICLINE • SYNCLINE 50 50 0 OVERTURNED ANTICLINE OVERTURNED SYNCLINE STRIKE AND DIP OF BEDDING STRIKE AND DIRECTION OF DIP STRIKE AND DIP OF 0 VERTURNED BEDDING HORIZONTAL BEDDING SHOWING TREND OF LINEATION EIV3ECJ REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP - CRANE CHEN AND ANDERSON PROPERTY —Expect Excellence— DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 4663.110.004 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: LL (CHECKED BY: ,JSY FIGURE NO. G: \Drafting\DRAF11NG2\_Dwg\4663\110\GEX\4663110006—GEX—FIG6—CRANEMAP-0117.dwg Plot Date:1-24-17 Ilee ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR 1030 4 0 22 U 0 O N 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 a 4 4 w BE REPROO COPYRIGHT CHEN PROPERTY Wells 0 FEET 2000 TI A aaa=tan-, • n • 9j EXPLANATION WeIfs LIQUEFACTION AREAS WHERE HISTORIC OCCURRENCE OF LIQUEFACTION, OR LOCAL GEOLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS INDICATE A POTENTIAL FOR PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENTS SUCH THAT MITIGATION AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2693(c) WOULD BE REQUIRED EARTHQUAKE -INDUCED LANDSLIDES AREAS WHERE PREVIOUS OCCURRENCE OF LANDSLIDE MOVEMENT, OR LOCAL TOPOGRAPHIC, GEOLOGICAL, GEOTECHNICAL AND SUBSURFACE 0 METERS 1000 WATER CONDITIONS INDICATE A POTENTIAL FOR PERMANENT GROUND DISPLACEMENTS SUCH THAT MITIGATION AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2693(c) WOULD BE REQUIRED BASE MAP SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2008 EN�O —Expect Excellence — SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP CHEN AND ANDERSON PROPERTY DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 4663.110.006 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: LL CHECKED BY: JSY FIGURE NO. 7 G: \Drafting\DRAF11NG2\_Dwg\4663\110\GEX\4663110006—GEX—FIG7—HAZMAP-0117.dwg Plot Dote:1-24-17 Ilee ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR 1031 APPENDIX A CONE PENETRATION TEST LOGS 1032 10 O O 10 co O z 0 O Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 N Cr) Date: 2016/12/28 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property N O O CO O O U) 0 O mOO m O m(T) 'v) 0 'v! m O mO 0 v) 0 v)U i) in ClayeySilt SiltyClay Silt SandySilt Silt ClayeySilt any 1 Undefined N'InV'n1I Y' N'InV'n1I Y' 22 2 = m d a) O 0_ 0 W a) a) x 2 a) 0) a) a) (3 a) 0_ x 2 0 0) 0 0 O D_ 2 W EOH: Pore Pressure Maxed 'IAII °11 O 10 O 10 O (iaaj) yjdaa 10 O M 10 M O E op op m o CO N O c L1J )E E c Qo v U'zr � Z Z c cng o Q) F- lZ' u' O 03 0) 00 < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved CT E 6h N = Q 0 0 0 � O E E c o LO CO CV o E Q Li IA o c .Th• o xa0)a) asa)> > 0QO 1033 LC) O CO 10 O Z 0 Date: 2016/12/28 14:07 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property m 0 co O O N n o O CO co N 0 O � O N O O Clay Clay SiltyClay ClayeySilt Silt 5 iT) ,,,N,,,N i m U mU m o m z'm 'm ) U cn O cn U c iT) cNNm U m U m mU m mmz cn O m 000 i Jilt Silt Silt Silt SiltyClay ClayeySilt ClayeySilt ClayeySilt ClayeySilt v1 ClayeySilt 7 CAI 1/ I EON: Anchor Slippel 10 (iaaj) yjdaa < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved 1034 LC) O CO 10 O Z 0 0 Cone: 446:T 1500 F 15 U 500 Date: 2016/12/29 08:44 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property N m co co 0 sensitive tines Clayey Silt SandySilt Clayey Silt SandySilt Silt SandySilt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silty Clay Silty Clay Silt Clayey Silt Silty Clay Silt Clayey Silt Silt m CO C.) CO Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silty Clay Silty Clay Silt Silt SandySilt Silt Silt m C.)') v) m 0 m U m 0) 00) 0) 0) U Cv) I ■ — M M■ ■ ■ ■ 1 _=1111I I 1 1 ■ 1 J1. IN ■1MIll Tr >11 O O O 0 O O LC) (iaaj) yjdaa 10 N LO O < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved 1035 Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Date: 2016/12/29 08:44 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property OW_ 0 CC Oz' LL=- LJ. C W _ N O O N O (0 CO N O O in SandySilt Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt in - - , N N a. 9 O O in 7 ■ 1 ■ ■ z\illr . ' I Twin! :OH: Anchor Slipper O10 10 co c r- 00 (iaaj) yjdaa E c0 CO O OO m N co c so_ (0 M U� 1 m Z c O N O • O F- N o O c• nZ o Pi" 86).2 -J 1.6 C) O 2 < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved E a < • 0 00 O L) Eo .c V N 0_ - > N c.) W N +% O ▪ L E E- X p_ p) U) a) a) > > 1036 0 Z 0 0 Cone: 446:T 1500 F 15 U 500 Date: 2016/12/29 07:44 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property N m CO co O C 0 2 I m c U U o n 0mmm mm m co m -o 8 m m Stiff Fine Grained Silt Silty Clay Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt SandySilt Silt Silt v J n 0) U1 m 0 d1U) 0) u0 U) U) mm m m c) c) U) IA. >11 c0 4 0 (iaaj) yjdaa E Co 0) co co ce O N c CO � 0_ E N- m U'71- � Z c O OZ (NI u) g O N I— O o Z o co 0 (1)U((1).0 J U O 2 < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved CT 0 0 E 0) CV LC) N � < in 00 0 0 E E .0 V CV L° O O > E Qi_i i E E- X p_ p) U) ma)> > 0QO 1037 O Z 0 Date: 2016/12/29 07:44 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property N H m 0 co 4- C O N O co 0 N 0 O O N 0 ID ID _ 'm m'mm . N I m CO ) 0 Undefined V (kV / 1 a rn I 2 cu — L a m 0 a) rn as L a m 0 2) (9 H LC) Lfl Lc) Lc) (.0 (iaaj) yjdaa L() (.0 L() co E 0) co 0) O O co m W TD N c CO m Ln 0_M (6 U� - m Z c O N 0 2O N ri < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved CT 0 0 E N � cow in 00 0 0 E o E .0 V N d L0 O O > E Qi_i o .0 O i E E- X p_ p) U) ma)> > QO 1038 Cone: 446:T 1500 F 15 U 500 Site: Chen Property ENGEO Inc. V W ¢0e rX oz LL=- .LI. W _ N O 0 O O O CO O � O N (/) 0 O O O O N O — sutyulay Clay Clay Silty Clay Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silt SiltySand/Sand SandySilt SandySilt Silty Sand/Sand Sand 2 )S— n — Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt a) a) n U in U- c0 >. TT - vNv0 a oa c c0 4) mm OON ..•.•.•.� .-• in nin in in I' --- - — — mil I I ' v O — O LC) LO N N OCr) C (iaaj) yjdaa E co 0 co co co 00 m TD E c 0 co c")Q C E N- N U� - m z c co N cn g 0 N I— N— • O i• ii Z (ml) U ((1) • .2 J C) O 2 < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved 1039 Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Date: 2016/12/29 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property H m CO 9- Cr T T T = iq 0 iq 0 i00 (0 N0 MEM N _ C0 N O CO O O Target Depth Target Depth O LC) Lo 0 0 0 0 C) H I I I I LS) LC)co � Oco 0 0 Lri 0 0 VI o c, N off m co cf) E IL � < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved 0 4) 0) O E LC) < or,o 00 Eo o Eo .0 ' N o > 0) U W — .0 ) 0 L c Q N a) 0) a) 2 0 < 0 1040 O Z 0 O Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Date: 2016/12/29 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property N m co co 0) O O W co N 0 N 0 0 N 0 O a Silty Clay SandySilt Silt SandySilt Silty Sand/Sand SandySilt Silt Silt SandySilt _ m _ a. N T a ,AL' U n_ 00) Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Ciit Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt SandySilt Clayey Silt Silt I M I IM — I ■I ❑ ■ C li 0 - 0 10 O N (iaaj) yjdaa 10 N O CO O 0 0 o N a 0 0 N off m co C IL � < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved CT 0 E O O co al Lc)0 0 0 Eo o E .c •N d o s o > m Q i_i W N .0 O CI L E E- X p_ p) U) ma)> > 1041 10 O 0 10 0 Cone: 446:T 1500 F 15 U 500 Date: 2016/12/29 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property N m 0 co O O N O co 0 N O O E(t TN f0 in_ TN o v) c Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt L a a) co L a a) co N EP c6 H L —1,\7'''Its.\\PAIr/IN a O 0 rn 1— _c a a) 0 N 2) c9 I— Lo lLo Lo L) CO (iaaj) yjdaa 0 CO co E co — 00 o m DE c o 0 Q E N- c6 � U.1- aZ c Z c o cn 2 O N •• • iii Z N cm1) 0 c(1) .2 J U 10 O 2 0 0 N a 0I 0 L N oI— CO co L co C IL � < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved CT co E co N = Q 0 0 0 Eo E .c Lo• N d L) o L' t O > N Q Li W -= 0 L E E- X p_ p) U) m a) > > 0<0 1042 1— 0 U i5 0 0) Cone: 446:T 1500 F 15 U 500 LO O N N CO O O O N Z o • is 0 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property N m CO (n O O O N 1n O 0- 0 Clay SiltyClay SiltyClay ClayeySilt ClayeySilt SandySilt SandySilt ty an an SandySilt SandySilt SandySilt Sand SandySilt SandySilt Sand Silh, Cann/Cann Lta U — 'm N N U — in N T O N " - 0 'v) CO m N +' N CO 0 N _ — I O — O (iaaj) yjdaa O M < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved 1043 Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Date: 2016/12/29 ENGEO Inc. Site: Chen Property * v7 h W - a 0 <°CC az I S 7Li 4w L) l- _ CO O N O N O O N L 0- CD 0 0 0) 0 H Target Depth I I LC) Ls) c.oO� co < Dissipation, equilibrium achieved 0 N 09 E N N �< 00 0 0 Eo L° E(Ni .0 M• N 0_ U W 0 L c Q N a) > j 2 0 < 0 1044 N m co co 0- Job No: 16-56104 Date: 12:28:16 08:12 ENGEO Inc. Site: 4663.110.006 O O O N O O O c0 O O O CO 0 O O N O O Undefined SiltySand/Sand SandySilt Silt SandySilt Silt Silt ClayeySilt Silt SandySilt Silt Silt Undefined ,I cr 0 D IL X o O PREPUf1 efusal-E Pore P Cap NO D a)4.) F 2 a) 0 a) X0Uz aaNO L To U a o No Ce NO DATA 0 a) -0 E w 1 a) X�U j 0- WQ 1 7c.w 1 - 022U n O (r0_ CC NO DATA II O w 2 U Z Exceeded ressure city PREPU Refusal - Pore Cap 1-0 10 O (iaaj) yjdaa O CO 1.0 CO O E 0 CO N CO CO rn W (0 OD N O c v Z Uo 0 0 0 o o N a) I- O a) "' Z mUa cl).c J U rn O 2 a) -0 N N _ a3 O N 0 E E a. o ,7 O ,o U =_ 7 7 a cu as) aa)) UIc N o,o 71- o 1-7, 2 0_ - 0 0 co co 0 5 _ vv IL � sT O N E — _ �a M N N0 00 O E E • in d o > m W X aO a) a)a)> > 20<o �■ l 1045 Job No: 16-56104 Date: 12:28:16 09:28 ENGEO Inc. Site: 4663.110.006 N m CO co CT O O O N O O O N O N 0 m m Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silty Clay Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt m l' m m 0 0 0 c5 0 m dp O 10 N N OCO CCU) (iaaj) yjdaa E E •c •� O _o,o U =_ a_ • N N N c OI N .o .Q o I— m as CO a CO• U u)• co 0 0 c vv IL D 0 O N E cow 2• a coN < Lo0 00 • E Ln E 'c • N d L0 O > N d • +% _• c X a D) N ma)> > 20<o �■ l 1046 2 m c 3 : Job No: 16-56104 Date: 12:28:16 09:28 Site: 4663.110.006 0 \ \ 0 3 m 3&33m m q CD _ CD _ ' / J o'- e- % \ � 2 ENGEO Inc. \ R 0 \ 0 / g k 0 CO (e� aI mdeg Cr E \\ <D \\ OO ES_ 2 E: §§' dW412 3_c x±=0 ,m>> >0<o 1047 Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 0 Job No: 16-56104 Date: 12:28:16 10:20 ENGEO Inc. Site: 4663.110.006 O CO N 0 N O O N Silty Clay Clayey Silt Clay Clayey Silt Clay Clayey Silt Clayey Silt It Silt SandySilt Silt Clayey Silt Silt olll Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt SandySilt Silt SandySilt Silt Clayey Silt SandySilt Silt SandySilt SandySilt Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt CO CO nT T N nT T f0 '--' f0 )U inC) 'v U) U) CO.,- G T T N N N T TT La 2 f0" ] U UUmf1 7 ■ ■ II■ • I■ • ■ 1 ■ ■■ • 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 0 O O - O 1 O 10 N N Cr) Cr) (iaaj) yjdaa E E a. 7 •7 0 _o,o U =_ a N N N c OI N o 0 , off m is � 0a 0-a 0 5 LL D vv �■ l 1048 / 0_ / ƒ \ Job No: 16-56104 Cone: 446:T1500F15U500 Date: 12:28:16 10:20 ENGEO Inc. Site: 4663.110.006 2 m = 3 : Cr) 2 0 \ CO e # m 0 CO \ , 0 0 0 \ , ,mm3 m ,3 3\ m m Undefined ,.. � T � _ . ill ,_ e _c ± / J k / 2 CO (e� aI mdeg CO CO 1049 N m co () Job No: 16-56104 Date: 12:28:16 11:33 Site: 4663.110.006 0) ENGEO Inc. O O O N O O O CO O N O O CO O O N O O O O N Silty Clay Clay Silty Clay Silt SandySilt SiltySand/Sand SandySilt SandySilt Silty Sand/Sand Sand Silty Sand/Sand silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Clayey Silt Silt Silt Clayey Silt Clayey Silt SandySilt Silt Clayey Silt N N L' ' L'2 - 'v)'v) C.) 0)0 0) a N W - N CD) C.)) N N N - 2 252 000 'v) I I = • I • • ■ 1 1 IIN M I■ I I I • T 1 ■ I C „r O O - O O 10 O N (iaaj) yjdaa 10 O Cr O N E ui a in 0O 0 0 • E E.cr .0 • N d O > N Qi_i +% X a D) U) ma)> > 2000 �■ l 1050 2 co o 3 : Job No: 16-56104 Date: 12:28:16 11:33 Site: 4663.110.006 0 \ 0 _ e # m 0 CO \ z 2 ENGEO Inc. Li _ \ R 0 \ - 3 ) - \ - 5 3mmoG Undefined J,II AV 1 J , , a ± / e k ± / $ CO (e� aI mdeg CO 1051 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST DATA Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report Particle Size Distribution Report Water Soluble Sulfates in Soils Test Report Inc.) LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate limit boundary for natural soils ,' upper O TY INDEX 0 0 c G O , , • PLASTICI 0 0 0 ■ O o G /4-'W// M L or O L M H or OH 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS • See Exploration Log 57 27 30 96.8 73.7 CH • See Exploration Log 35 15 20 ♦ See Exploration Log 43 16 27 Project No. 4663.110.005 Client: GH Pacific Investment Holdings, LLC Project: Chen Property •Source of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-1 ■Source of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-3 Source of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-6 Remarks: •ASTM D4318, wet method ASTM D422 •ASTM D4318, wet method AASTM D4318, wet method Figure ENGEO I N c ❑Rp❑RA TSD. Tested By: I. McCauley Checked By: K. Lecce 1053 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate limit boundary for natural soils ,' upper O TY INDEX 0 0 c G O PLASTICI 0 0 0 / ■ • O o G /4-'W// M L or O L M H or OH 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS • See Exploration Log 46 20 26 97.7 79.8 CL • See Exploration Log 48 19 29 ♦ See Exploration Log 44 19 25 Project No. 4663.110.006 Client: GH Pacific Investment Holdings, LLC Project: Anderson Property •Source of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-1 ■Source of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-2 ASource of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-4 Remarks: •ASTM D4318, wet method ASTM D422 •ASTM D4318, wet method AASTM D4318, wet method Figure ENGEO I N c ❑Rp❑RA TSD. Tested By: I. McCauley Checked By: K. Lecce 1054 Particle Size Distribution Report �_ _ _0 0N�0�0 0p 0�0N f0 M N ._ n \ M # ik a' 7k ik ik ��° 100 i i i I 1 1 1II 1 11 • II i ii II i 90 1 1 i 1 80 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 • 1 70 CC w 60 Z LL • • Z 50 w U CC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 I I i • •• w 40 d • 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 GRAIN 01 0.01 0.001 SIZE - mm. +75mm %Coarse % Gravel % Sand % Fines Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.0 23.1 34.2 39.5 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? 1 Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) See Exploration Log #4 #10 #20 #40 loom 99.8 99.0 96.8 Atterberg Limits #60 #100 #140 #200 91.7 84.2 78.7 73.7 PL= 27 LL= 57 PI= 30 Coefficients 0.0303 mm. 0.0193 mm. 0.0114 mm. 0.0082 mm. 0.0059 mm. 63.0 61.0 54.2 51.3 46.4 D90= 0.2207 D85= 0.1581 D60= 0.0175 D50= 0.0074 D30= D15= D10= Cu__Cc- Classification 0.0042 mm. 0.0034 mm. 0.0029 mm. 44.6 43.6 41.6 USCS= CH AASHTO= A-7-6(23) Remarks 0.0021 mm. 0.0012 mm. 39.8 35.3 ASTM D422 ASTM D4318, wet method (no specification provided) Source of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-1 Date: 1-10- 17 EIIEEc I N C Q R P O R A T E E} Client: GH Pacific Investment Holdings, LLC Project: Chen Property Project No: 4663.110.005 PH1 Figure Tested By: I. McCauley Checked By: K. Lecce 1055 Particle Size Distribution Report �_ _ o § 221 m M N _ n \ M •: 100 i 1 • i i 1 i i 11 i • •i i 90 1 1 80 1 • 70 CC • W 60 Z LL Z • 50 U CC 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 • W 40 d • • • 30 • 20 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 10 0 100 10 1 GRAIN 01 0.01 0.001 SIZE - mm. +75mm %Coarse % Gravel % Sand % Fines Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 17.9 48.7 31.1 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? 1 Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) See Exploration Log #4 #10 #20 #40 loom 1oo.0 99.3 97.7 Atterberg Limits #60 #100 #140 #200 95.0 90.8 86.2 79.8 PL= 20 LL= 46 PI= 26 Coefficients 0.0303 mm. 0.0197mm. 0.0117 mm. 0.0084 mm. 0.0060 mm. 62.3 54.6 46.9 43.0 39.2 D90= 0.1394 D85= 0.0987 D60= 0.0268 D50= 0.0147 D30= 0.0018 D1_5= D10= Cu_ Cc- Classification 0.0043 mm. 0.0035 mm. 0.0030 mm. 37.3 35.5 33.6 USCS= CL AASHTO= A-7-6(21) Remarks 0.0022 mm. 0.0013 mm. 31.7 26.3 ASTM D422 ASTM D4318, wet method (no specification provided) Source of Sample: GEX Depth: Surface Sample Number: 1-CPT-1 Date: 1-10- 17 EIIEEc I N C Q R P O R A T E E} Client: GH Pacific Investment Holdings, LLC Project: Anderson Property Project No: 4663.110.006 PH1 Figure Tested By: I. McCauley Checked By: K. Lecce 1056 WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES IN SOILS ASTM C1580 Sample number Sample Location / ID Matrix Water Soluble Sulfate % by mass 1 1-CPT-4 surface soil ND 2 1-CPT-5 surface soil ND Remarks: Results are reported to the nearest 0.01 % by mass. Anything less than 0.005% will be reported as 'ND' for Not -Detectable. PROJECT NAME: Chen Property PROJECT NUMBER: 4663.110.005 CLIENT: GH Pacific Investment Holdings, LLC PHASE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 01/10/17 ENGEO INCORPOR A TED Tested by: I. McCauley Reviewed by: K. Lecce Lab Address: 17278 Golden Valley Parkwy, Lathrop, CA 95330. Phone No. (209) 835-0610 1057 APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1058 Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude IA,: Peak ground acceleration: 0 12 14 ,-,16 c 18 Q 0 20 Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*) 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0.8 0.7- 0.6- 0.5- 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1- 0 ENGEO Expect Excellence ENGEO, Inc 2010 Crow Canyon PI, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 www.engeo.com LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title : Chen Property CPT file : 1-CPT2 Input parameters and analysis data B&I (2014) B&I (2014) Based on Ic value 6.60 0.71 Cone resistance 20 40 60 qt (tsf) 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 80 0 Friction Ratio I � I 4 6 8 Rf (%) Location : Dublin, California G.W.T. (in -situ): 20.00 ft Use fill: No G.W.T. (earthq.): 20.00 ft Fill height: N/A Average results interval: 3 Fill weight: N/A Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Trans. detect. applied: Yes Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT lc applied: Yes SBTn Plot CRR plot 10 Mw=7", sigma=1 atm base curve 2- 6- 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 1 2 3 4 Ic (Robertson 1990) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 gclN,cs Normalized CPT penetration resistance 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 0 During eartl;q. i 0.2 0.4 CRR & CSR Clay like behavior applied: Sand & Clay Limit depth applied: No Limit depth: N/A MSF method: Method based 6 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 06 FS Plot 0.5 1 1.5 Factor of safety Summary of liquefaction potential i i i. i 01 1 Normalized friction ratio (%) Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post -earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry 10 CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/22/2017, 10:42:06 PM Project file: G:\Active Projects\4663\4663110005 - Chen PGEX\cLiq Analysis\Chen Property Liquefaction Analysis FOR REPORTING.clq 1059 CPT name: 1-CPT2 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated Nom. pore pressure ratio Norm. friction ratio d ttu w d 0 V £ 2 8' i i - 4 0 005>> 0 (n t0 n 00 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 01 O- ti ti ti ti ti--- ON (4) 4pdaa • 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 tD N. 00 01 0- N M 7 )/1 %D N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M 1i co 01 O .--i N M 7- t0 n co 01 O .--i N M 7 (n O n CO 01 O- N M 7 (n (11) 44daa O 7. Gravely sand t IIII ❑ c 0( c anic material 3. Clay to silty clay 0 o2S a •� Q N N t50 O Q z>rnzz 00 v 1D n n ea � 13 Ra 0) L (0 - O L L N r C L O N M 0 Jo. ti 1 1 O n CO 01 O . N M .-1 .-I N N N N (i) 44daa 1 N Lel 1 N 1 N 0 0 N M L 0 01 01 01._ 13 a) a) .� .N C Y _0 "0 O 3 i n3 L F- Y U J 00 0 0 O y O O 0) t0 u Q ON M N m Z Z -00 -L.; To cr 0 _C Y m y! IL 0 L > — 7 O YO 0) _c ._ O 0) _ O1 ? . 0 (1;u =' a 0Q.-,'u=(ii N (M 0 0 - N M 7 1 1 O n CO 0) 0 . N M (i) 44daa 1 O N 0) 10 N M (0 M 1 N M M M 1 7 M tD M I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 0) O- N M 7- (0 r\ 00 0) O- N M 7(0 (0 n 00 0) O- N M 7(0 O M M (�3) 44daa O O O c - V 0 Input parameters and analysis data ti C 0 0 0 �� O 0000 00 0 lO 00N 1060 CPT name: 1-CPT2 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated Lateral displacements Vertical settlements J 0 a U .i N M Q N 0 n 0] O1 O .-1 N T Ln O n W O1 0 n GO 01 O .ti N M Q En 0 NNNNNNNNN N rn (n m M M M M ( ) gidaa — 0 LPI color scheme ❑ ❑ ❑ T d) (0 N Q T aC) - C d 3 7 C Q d C a+ C in 0 U N _ �..� w N Lei ✓ • Q > o LL ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I lit I I I I I I I I I I I I I .-I N M 7 t0 f\ W O 0 ~-i ti ti ti .T-N �0 .^i ON N ▪ N N N N N N N N OM CO M M M • M M (�3) 4jdaa .-I N M 0 LN t0 N. co O O ." N N M 0 Nn b n GO O O .- N M 0 Nn b N. co O0 O ."N N M 7 Nn O .•i .•i .•i .•i .•i .•i .•i .•i .•i N N N N N N N N N N M P) 0'1 M M M M (4) updaa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .•i N M 0 Lo .D N CO Of O .-N N M 7 N O N. co 01 0 4-1 N M 7 N t0 n CO O O .ti N M 7 10 t0 .-N .-N .-N .-N .-N .-I .-I .-N .-N .-N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M 1ti m N M 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nn t0 N 07 O. O .-N N M 0 Nn a0 N. GO O. O .-N (�1) 4Ndaa I I I I I I I I I I I I N N N N N N N N M M M M M Y GO M M Input parameters and analysis data O Almost certain it will not liauefv 0 Z ce a uJ ce ▪ 2 uN OT N 2 < O C 0 O4cr, N J C > Z O 2 23a c aL i V � tl Q j N i d (.0 N _ CU U) 00 (n 0 (n O E2 Q O- ▪ M • )0 'e tT J as U N V Mg N 0S . w J Oi U o_ 1061 Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 ,-, 22 24 Q 26 a) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*) 0.8 0.7- 0.6- 0.5- 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1- ENGEO Expect Excellence ENGEO, Inc 2010 Crow Canyon PI, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 www.engeo.com LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title : Chen Property CPT file : 1-CPT5 Input parameters and analysis data B&I (2014) B&I (2014) Based on Ic value 6.60 0.71 Cone resistance 50 100 qt (tsf) 2- 4- 6- 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 38 40- 42- 44- 46- 48- 50- 0 2 4 6 (%) G.W.T. (in -situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Friction Ratio Rf 8 10 Mw=7", sigma=1 atm base curve 2— 4— 6— 8— 10— 12— 14 16- 18— 20— 22— 24— 26— 28— 30— 32— 34— 36— 38— 40— 42— 44— 46— 48— 50— , 1 Location : Dublin, California 20.00 ft Use fill: No 20.00 ft Fill height: N/A 3 Fill weight: N/A 2.60 Trans. detect. applied: Yes Based on SBT applied: Yes SBTn Plot CRR plot 2 3 4 Ic (Robertson 1990) 0 ii llliii liii lliii liii l1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 gclN,cs Normalized CPT penetration resistance 4- 6- 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20 22- 24- 26- 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 38- 40- 42- 44- 46- 48- 50— During eart I � I 0.2 0.4 CRR & CSR Clay like behavior applied: Sand & Clay Limit depth applied: No Limit depth: N/A MSF method: Method based FS Plot 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor of safety Summary of liquefaction potential i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 01 1 Normalized friction ratio (%) Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post -earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry 10 CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/22/2017, 10:42:07 PM Project file: G:\Active Projects\4663\4663110005 - Chen PGEX\cLiq Analysis\Chen Property Liquefaction Analysis FOR REPORTING.clq 4 1062 CPT name: 1-CPT5 d N f0 E L 0 a.d 0 0. 0 f0 w 0. L w v N 1- U This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated - Go a. a a s a a • a a • LT 01 on oC S wo5 al wt36 tPs ot36 oC c q A ▪ , , ., .• oa' a O 0 05 05 C5 C5 05 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 05 C5 us 0 C5 C5 C5 C3 C3C53 o t0 g O - ce (1)I. _ t0 C £ - In — N = I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I N et tD W O N eF VD ti CO O N et t0 W O N er tO CO O N et tO CO O .-1 .ti .-1 .-1 N N N N N CO M M CO CO er er R er q' .1 ressure ratio a) 0 0. s£ L Norm. friction ratio Norm. cone resistance (14) 44daa 1 N 7 t0 W O N et t0 COO N 7 t0 COO N er tO W O N er t0 COO 1-1 . -1 .-1 N N N N N M CO M CO CO er er eY Q er IA (�3) 44daa N 7 t0 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O N R t0 0O O N Cr IL/CO O N et t0 000 N el' t0 COO. N N N N N M CO M M M et 7 et et er N (i) updaa 0 O N et i0 N N N N (14) 44daa 0 CO N CO 7 M O et N et 7. Gravely sand t MOD C C anic material 1- 0 y O O tin) u) Q ON M N m z z 3. Clay to silty clay - LL I I I O 0 CO 0 et er N 0 O O 0 - O V OJ 0 1 1 1 1 1 04 N N N CO (i3) 44daa 0 M N CO er M t0 M CO CO 0 et 0 0( In 0 Input parameters and analysis data 1063 CPT name: 1-CPT5 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated Lateral displacements Vertical settlements 1-4 J 0 a u- Y a U 03 00 O CO N N N N CO (1J) 4idaa O co CO (0 CO 00 O 0 0 CO 0 O — N I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 0 10 W 0 NI ID 00 0 N 7 tO CO 0 N 7 IO 00 0 N 7 tO COO N N N N N M M (0 CO CO 7 7 0 V V CO (44) 4jdaa I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 O N 'R t0 COO N 'V' 10 N O N 01 CO COO fV 7 t0 CO 0 N N N N N CO CO M CO CO 0 C cr 0 C 10 N b co O rl Cs! ti GO CO (4) u4daa N N N N CO (1J) 44daa O co (0 0 0 0 CO LO 03 r 1 W Na • oo 0 N N N N 0 (0 M M (0 7 T 7 7 R N (u) 44daa LPI color scheme ❑ ❑ ❑ Almost certain it will not liauefv 00 N (n O -o O O O 0 y T N M N m Z Z v - m Ln o t O m ~ Oi C hi U ▪ J N 10 ro (7 > t .. n LL O O T L p Fon- t U) _ O r3w ) 0) 0 Q i-Vi D 0 LL O Input parameters and analysis data Q Z a uJ ce 2 n of O•T N 0 Q O C 0 I:(0 0 N N � T C GO O 2 a tea) c aL V TA' 00 2 Q j i d co O _ CU N i0 �o �o a)2 Q M O- M ro 7 "e LT J as U V J Oi U d 1064 Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: 4— 6— 8— 10— 12— 14— 16— 18— 20— 22— 24— Q 26— 0 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 38- 40- 42- 44- 46- 48- 50- Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*) ENGEO Expect Excellence ENGEO, Inc 2010 Crow Canyon PI, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 www.engeo.com LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title : Chen Property CPT file : 1-CPT6 Input parameters and analysis data B&I (2014) B&I (2014) Based on Ic value 6.60 0.71 Cone resistance 20 40 60 80 100 120 qt (tsf) 4- 6- 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 38- 40- 42- 44- 46- 48- 50- 0 G.W.T. (in -situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Friction Ratio I 2- 4- 6- 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 38- 40- 42- 44- 46- 48- 50— Location : Dublin, California 20.00 ft Use fill: No 20.00 ft Fill height: N/A 3 Fill weight: N/A 2.60 Trans. detect. applied: Yes Based on SBT applied: Yes SBTn Plot CRR plot 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 Rf (%) Mw=7", sigma=1 atm base curve 0.8 0.7- 0.6- 0.5- 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1— 4 Ic (Robertson 1990) 0 ii llliii liii lliii liii l1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 gclN,cs Normalized CPT penetration resistance 4- 6- 8- 10- 12- 14- 16- 18- 20 22- 24- 26- 28- 30- 32- 34- 36- 38- 40- 42- 44- 46- 48- 50- 0 During eart I � I 0.2 0.4 CRR & CSR Clay like behavior applied: Sand & Clay Limit depth applied: No Limit depth: N/A MSF method: Method based FS Plot 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor of safety Summary of liquefaction potential i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 01 1 Normalized friction ratio (%) Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post -earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry 10 CLiq v.1.7.6.34 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/22/2017, 10:42:07 PM Project file: G:\Active Projects\4663\4663110005 - Chen PGEX\cLiq Analysis\Chen Property Liquefaction Analysis FOR REPORTING.clq 7 1065 CPT name: 1-CPT6 d N f0 L 0 a.d 0 a 4.1 f0 w a ria w v N 1- U This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated 0 a m ressure ratio a) 0 s£ L a to d d 0 I CO —ti I-6 V' -6 • ~ pOi .• tt tt t% t% t% tt tt t% 1 1. t% t3 t%t3 tS tS-, t%' *zit t - O o 05 0 Z5 05 0 C5 00 0 C5 0 C5 0 Z5 C5 0 0 0 t 5 Z5 Z5 0_ tt a) _o, 0 to —7 111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 7 t0 W O ti ti tO CO O N 7 t0 CO O N 7 t0 CO O N 7 tO CO O N N N N N M M M M M 7 7 7 Cr Cr .1 () 44dsa I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I N 7 t0 C7 0 .N-1 .7-I tO COO N N N N 0 M CV cr M M tO CO CV cr 7 00 7 CO1,1 (1}) 4pdaa O I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I N 7 tO 00 O N 7 tO CO 0 N 7 tO 00 O N 7 tO CO O N 7 tO 00 0 .-I .-1 .-I .-I .-I N N N N N M M (0 M M 7 7 7 7 7 ✓1 O rl (14) 44daa O N T iO N N N N (14) 44daa 1 O N O N M M I 7 M W M 1 0 7 N 7 1 7 7 O 7 1 CO 7 O o c - O N� V 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I W 0 .N-I .7-I - W 0 N N N N 0 M M M CO 7 7 7 7 01 (i3) 44daa Input parameters and analysis data 7. Gravely sand t IIII ❑ C m C anic material 3. Clay to silty clay Ib z cc a cc 0_ u o '. N 00 C O c '-1 CO iJ OID N Q N -I0) C O. 02 a 00 c CO _c 0_= a Ij v i W 0ccon ai L C V v E0 �o Q)o vo QM o V VM0 CO VD N tT J O as v; u M t0 6. cr 0 O` Ua 1066 CPT name: 1-CPT6 This software is licensed to: ENGEO Incorporated Lateral displacements Vc O. 0 a u- 0 a U LD CO O 0 CO O N N V O CO N N N N (4) 44d@a O M M LD M CO M O 7 N 7 00 00 0 NI P 40 00 ▪ 0 N N N CN 00 M CO DI00 (44) g4daa O 0 40 CO O 0 LPI color scheme to - 'J+ ~ C 6 ala C Q _� ▪ W c o 1O • a+ C o ocn v0i u Ti; U -O O Y o N L Y a)O • O w ✓ Q > J D 1 I I I O LL ❑❑❑■■ 7 d- d- d- 7 ul 7111111 N 7 t0 CO O N 7 00 GO O N 7 t0 CO O N • LID 00 O N 1- O CO O - rl +-I rl - N N N N N M M M M M 0 R O' R 7 LN (4) u4dea 0 1 O • N 1 CO O N1 7 t0 CO 0 N • ‘.000 0 N T t0 1 W O N N N N M M M M M 00 7 7 7 7 u7 (4) q 4c1aa I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I tD 00 O Ni • LO COO N N N ON OM M M 01 COd0- 0N- 0 VCO 0 (u) 4Ndea 0 ti T ro 0 0 LL O O Input parameters and analysis data Almost certain it will not liauefv LT 1067 SAN RAMON SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE OAKLAND LATHROP ROCKLIN SANTA CLARITA IRVINE CHRISTCHURCH WELLINGTON AUCKLAND ENGEO Expect Excellence A ACO City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix I Noise Monitoring Sheets 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 1069 Noise Measurement Survey — 24 HR Project Number: DUB2101.04 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab Project Name: 580 Fallon Equipment: Spark 706RC (SN:17815) Site Number: LT-1 Date: 11/9/23 Time: From 3:00 p.m. To 3:00 p.m. Site Location: Located South of Pandora Way, on a parking sign pole. Primary Noise Sources: Local Traffic noise Occasional aircraft Background construction noise Comments: Photo: 1070 Long -Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-1 Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA) Leq Lmax Lmin 3:00 PM 11/9/23 52.9 68.8 43.4 4:00 PM 11/9/23 53.9 77.3 44.5 5:00 PM 11/9/23 54.6 75.3 48.4 6:00 PM 11/9/23 55.4 67.8 49.0 7:00 PM 11/9/23 55.8 67.0 50.4 8:00 PM 11/9/23 55.2 66.7 50.3 9:00 PM 11/9/23 54.2 62.9 49.8 10:00 PM 11/9/23 54.2 64.9 49.4 11:00 PM 11/9/23 53.6 65.9 48.9 12:00 AM 11/10/23 52.0 64.9 46.1 1:00 AM 11/10/23 51.6 62.1 45.5 2:00 AM 11/10/23 51.9 57.9 46.8 3:00 AM 11/10/23 55.2 64.5 50.4 4:00 AM 11/10/23 56.3 63.7 52.5 5:00 AM 11/10/23 58.7 77.2 52.8 6:00 AM 11/10/23 58.9 73.9 54.6 7:00 AM 11/10/23 57.3 67.0 51.4 8:00 AM 11/10/23 60.8 78.2 48.8 9:00 AM 11/10/23 62.1 73.7 50.1 10:00 AM 11/10/23 67.0 81.7 42.7 11:00 AM 11/10/23 60.3 75.2 43.0 12:00 PM 11/10/23 60.5 68.8 44.6 1:00 PM 11/10/23 56.6 69.7 44.8 2:00 PM 11/10/23 60.9 83.2 45.4 Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023) dBA = A -weighted decibel Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Lmin = minimum measured sound level 87.0 s 83.0 ▪ 79.0 < 75.0 m 71.0 - 67.0 • 63.0 ai 59.0 ▪ 55.0 a, 51.0 •0 47.0 z 43.0 39.0 35.0 Long -Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement LT-1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1:11 1 1- i1:11 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1•- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 a a a a 0 a d d d a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m In l0 n CO Cr; O .--1 N , -1 N m V In l0 N. 00 O1 O �--� N -1 cN ci ci ci T-1 T-1 c-I Leq Time of Day Lmax Lmin 1071 Noise Measurement Survey — 24 HR Project Number: DUB2101.04 Test Personnel: Moe Abushanab Project Name: 580 Fallon Equipment: Spark 706RC (SN:18571) Site Number: LT-2 Date: 11/9/23 Time: From 3:00 p.m. To 3:00 p.m. Site Location: Located east of Camino Lp, on a fence Primary Noise Sources: Traffic noise entering the residential community. Background construction noise Comments: Photo: 1072 Long -Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-2 Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA) Leq Lmax Lmin 3:00 PM 11/9/23 58.1 76.4 46.7 4:00 PM 11/9/23 55.5 69.6 42.3 5:00 PM 11/9/23 52.3 72.5 42.0 6:00 PM 11/9/23 53.8 71.7 44.5 7:00 PM 11/9/23 55.0 60.7 49.1 8:00 PM 11/9/23 54.0 62.9 47.6 9:00 PM 11/9/23 54.8 64.1 48.9 10:00 PM 11/9/23 53.2 63.1 43.2 11:00 PM 11/9/23 48.9 56.2 42.6 12:00 AM 11/10/23 49.6 55.8 42.6 1:00 AM 11/10/23 48.7 54.3 43.7 2:00 AM 11/10/23 50.6 58.3 44.0 3:00 AM 11/10/23 52.2 59.2 47.0 4:00 AM 11/10/23 53.9 59.9 50.0 5:00 AM 11/10/23 53.6 67.8 49.7 6:00 AM 11/10/23 56.6 68.6 51.5 7:00 AM 11/10/23 64.1 84.3 52.6 8:00 AM 11/10/23 64.9 81.5 53.2 9:00 AM 11/10/23 62.0 81.2 51.7 10:00 AM 11/10/23 58.1 74.6 44.4 11:00 AM 11/10/23 63.0 78.7 46.9 12:00 PM 11/10/23 64.5 79.0 44.0 1:00 PM 11/10/23 66.8 77.1 51.8 2:00 PM 11/10/23 62.7 81.7 52.1 Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023) dBA = A -weighted decibel Leq = equivalent continuous sound level Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level Lmin = minimum measured sound level 87.0 83.0 v 79.0 Q 75.0 m 71.0 67.0 Ti) 63.0 v 59.0 J 55.0 °; 51.0 .6 47.0 z 43.0 39.0 35.0 Long -Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement LT-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c V a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lfl W Cr; O c-I N c-I N m V 6-1 lO N. CO Ol O c-I N c1 N N -1 Leq Time of Day Lmax Lmin 1073 City of Dublin Dublin Fallon 580 Project Initial Study I Appendices Appendix J Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Memorandum 580Fallon_FinalDraftlS.docx (4/8/24) 1074 KITTELSON t/ &ASSOCIATES 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 Technical Memorandum December 19, 2023 Project# 26585 To: Shanna Guiler, Associate/Environmental Planner LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 From: Aaron Elias RE: Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison This technical memorandum presents the vehicle trip generation for the proposed development of the Dublin Fallon 580 project located north of 1-580 in Dublin, California. Development of this property and its impact on the transportation system have been studied in previous Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) in 1992, 2002, and 2005 - this technical memorandum is intended to provide a comparison between the trip generation assumed in the 2005 SEIR1 document with the 2023 proposed development plan. Dublin Fallon 580 Property The property is located on an approximately 192-acre site designated as Medium High Density Residential (13.5 acres), General Commercial/Campus Office ([GC/CO], 126.3 acres), Community Park (35.8 acres), Open Space (44.9 acres) and Public/Semi-Public (2.5 acres). The project site is located in the eastern portion of Dublin (Assessor's Parcel Numbers [APN]: 905-0001-006-03; 985-0027-002; 985-0027-005; 985-0027- 004). The project is located east of Fallon Road and north of Interstate 580 (1-580). Croak Road divides the project site from north to south and the future Dublin Boulevard Extension Project bisects the project site from west to east. 2005 SEIR Assumptions Based on the existing approved stage 1 PD and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the project would develop 13.5 acres as 200 residential units and about 126 acres would become 1,446,000 square feet of general commercial/campus office. Since general commercial and campus office have different trip generating rates, the 1,446,000 square feet was divided into the component land uses. Determination of the component land uses was based on the traffic study2 completed for the 2005 SEIR. This traffic study assumed two types of land uses for the non-residential components of the project including retail and office. To split the 1,446,000 square feet into retail and service components, Kittelson used the same ratio as the overall Fallon Village Supplemental EIR trip generation table (Table 4.2.6 2005 SEIR) which shows 980,000 square feet of service and 1,522,000 square feet of retail. Therefore, the resulting square footage once the 1,446,000 square feet was proportioned was 879,621 square feet of retail and 566,379 square feet of service space. 1 Fallon Village Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, 2005 2 Fallon Village Traffic Study, August 2005 prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1075 December 19, 2023 Page 2 Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison 2023 Proposed Project The 2023 proposed project is proposing to change the land use to the following: • 238 multi -family dwelling units • 2,888,400 square feet of advance manufacturing • Hotel of approximately 314 rooms • 100,000 square feet of retail • 100,000 square feet of office This is larger than the 1,446,000 square feet from the 2005 SEIR but advanced manufacturing uses are a less intensive trip generator than office and retail land uses. The residential component of the project would increase slightly by eight (8) units compared to the SEIR to a total of 238 units. Trip Generation Trip generation is a key factor in transportation analyses whether a level of service analysis or a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is being performed. This section compares the estimated daily trip generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 project parcels in the 2005 SEIR with what the trip generation is estimated to be with the 2023 proposed project. A 2023 proposed project trip generation that is less than the 2005 SEIR trip generation would mean the 2023 proposed project fits within the trip generation envelope of what was studied in the 2005 SEIR and no additional impacts that were not previously disclosed would be anticipated. A trip generation in 2023 higher than what was studied in the 2005 SEIR could potentially result in new impacts and would need to be studied in more detail. 2005 SEIR Trip Generation The traffic study for the 2005 SEIR used the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition to estimate trip generation for Fallon Village. The four land use categories used and the associated daily trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition include: • Single Family Residential (ITE Code 210 with a daily rate of 9.57 trips per dwelling unit) • Multifamily Residential (ITE Code 220 with a daily rate of 6.72 trips per dwelling unit) • Retail (ITE Code 820 with a daily rate of 42.94 trips per thousand square feet) • Office/Service (ITE Code 710 with a daily rate of 11.01 trips per thousand square feet) Based on these land uses and the square footage and dwelling units assumed for the proposed project site in the 2005 SEIR, the estimated daily trip generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 project parcels is shown in Table 1. As shown, the Dublin Fallon 580 project is estimated3 to have produced 45,550 daily vehicle trips in the 2005 SEIR. 3 The exact trip generation used is unknown since these documents analyzed overall trip generation of Fallon Village Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1076 December 19, 2023 Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project Parcels Based on 2005 SEIR Description Size Daily Single Family 70 du 210 670 Multi -Family 130 du 220 874 Retail 879.621 ksf 820 37,771 Service 566.379 ksf 710 6,236 Total 45,550 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023 Daily Rate from ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition DU = Dwelling Unit KSF = Thousand Square Feet 2023 Proposed Project Page 3 The current 2023 proposal is more specific than the 2005 SEIR with residential units, advanced manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office land uses. To estimate the trip generation of these land uses, Kittelson used the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual which is the 11 th Edition. The five land use categories used and the associated daily trip generation rate from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11 th Edition include: • Multifamily Residential (ITE Code 220 with a daily rate of 6.74 trips per dwelling unit) • Advanced Manufacturing (ITE Code 140 with a daily rate of 4.75 per thousand square feet) • Hotel (ITE Code 310 with a daily rate of 7.99 trips per room) • Retail (ITE Code 820 with a daily rate of 37.01 per thousand square feet) • Office (ITE Code 710 with a daily rate of 10.84 per thousand square feet) Table 2 shows the resulting daily trip generation which is projected to be 22,618 trips per day. Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project Parcels Based on 2023 Proposed Project Description Size Units ITE � _miMulti-Family Daily 238 du 220 1,604 Advanced Manufacturing 2,888.4 ksf 140 13,720 Hotel 314 Rooms 310 2,509 Retail 100 ksf 820 3,701 Office 100 ksf 710 1,084 Total 22,618 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023 'Daily Rate from ITE Trip Generation Manual l l'h Edition DU = Dwelling Unit KSF = Thousand Square Feet Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1077 December 19, 2023 Page 4 Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Conclusion This technical memorandum documented the trip generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 property studied as part of the 2005 SEIR for Fallon Village and the estimated trip generation for the same property based on the 2023 development plan. As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the 2023 development plan generates 22,932 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the 2005 SEIR. This results in the 2023 development plan fitting within the envelope of what was previously studied and no new transportation impacts not previously disclosed would be anticipated based on daily trip generation of the Dublin Fallon 580 property. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 1078 Attachment I I From: Flora Bai To: Crystal De Castro Subject: Comments to proposed change for Dublin Fallon 580 Project Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 11:14:14 AM Attachments: imaae.ona CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission, I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the newly proposed changes directly in front of my unit at 3871 Camino Loop. This massive new construction will dramatically affect our neighborhood, leading to increased noise and overcrowded schools. Compared to the existing plan, the proposed plot subdividing changes would significantly reduce existing open space and eliminate the planned Public/Semi Public area within the MH (parcel #7) area. These modifications will likely lead to congestion in our neighborhood. Most concerning is that parcel #7 will be built on the same level as our community, which requires extensive land filling and major landform changes. To address these pressing concerns, I propose moving parcel 10 (open space) to a location between parcel 7 and our community, creating a vital buffer zone that preserves the integrity of our neighborhood and minimizes negative impacts. Moreover, I advocate for the builder to construct under the cliff -like slope rather than on it. This adjustment would not only reduce the builder's cost by avoiding extensive land filling and slope extension, but also mitigate safety issues from landform changes and preserve the spectacular views that we all appreciate. It would be a win -win situation for the builder and the neighbors. General Plan and EDSPAmendment Existing Thank you for considering my concerns and suggestions. Flora(Yuhua) Bai Warmest Re ards, Proposed 1079 From: Jason Holder To: Plannina Commission; Crystal De Castro Cc: Sachin Bhandari Subject: Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:48:18 PM Attachments: Comment Letter OBO Kinaswood OA re I-S Addendum for Dublin Fallon 580 Project 060424.odf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Please find the attached comments concerning the above -referenced project, submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission on behalf of Kingswood Owners Association. The comments are submitted in anticipation of Planning Commission consideration of the Project at its next meeting on June 11, 2024. Sincerely, -Jason Jason W. Holder Holder Law Group Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney -client and/or the attorney work -product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you 1080 1 1 L G 1 1 June 4, 2024 Holder Law Group 1980 Mountain Blvd., Ste. 211 Oakland, CA 94607 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of Dublin Planning Commission Catheryn Grier, Commissioner Janine Thalblum, Commissioner Renata Tyler, Commissioner Stephen Wright, Chairperson Matthew Aini, Vice Chairperson Wahida Rashid, Alternate Commissioner Nicholas Ochoa, Alternate Commissioner Email holderecolaw.com (510) 338-3759 jason@holderecolaw.com City of Dublin Attn: Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Email: Re: Comments Concerning Proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033; APNs 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-002, 985-0027-005, and 985-0027-004) Dear Chairperson Wright, Honorable Members of the Dublin Planning Commission and Ms. De Castro: We have been retained by Kingswood Owners Association ("KOA") in connection with the proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (the "Project"). On behalf of KOA, we respectfully submit the following comments letter with the intention of fostering a cooperative and efficient dialogue with the City and Project applicant to resolve the issues identified herein through Project's administrative process. Due to numerous unanalyzed and unmitigated Project impacts, KOA (1) objects to substantial intensification of commercial uses as inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("EDSP") and its associated EIR, without adequate supplemental environmental review, (2) objects to the proposed use of an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs as the environmental clearance document for this Project because the Project involves more than "minor" changes to existing Specific Plan designations, (3) urge modifications to the Project as proposed to avoid or reduce unstudied or downplayed significant environmental impacts, including substantially increased traffic congestion, traffic safety impacts, and significant impacts to public scenic resources, and (4) request timely notice pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in order to participate meaningfully in the process. Until the issues raised by KOA and other community stakeholders are resolved satisfactorily, we request that the Planning Commission not make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the Project. 1081 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 2 City of Dublin ("City") staff prepared an Initial Study for the Project and based on the Initial Study ("I/S") determined that a CEQA addendum is the appropriate environmental review document. The following comments are based on our initial review of the I/S and Addendum for the Project and the updated EDSP.1 The I/S analysis generally references and relies upon mitigation measures described in the following documents: the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report ("Specific Plan EIR"), the 2002 East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR ("2002 SEIR"), and the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR ("2005 SEIR") (collectively, the "EDSP EIRs").2 The EDSP EIRs are not accessible through the City's website — these multi -tiered analyses (upon which the Addendum's analysis heavily depends) must be made available and readily accessible to the public for review during the environmental review and administrative process for the Project. To enable meaningful public participation and satisfy CEQA's informational requirements, please transmit electronic versions of the EDSP EIRs to the undersigned (or provide links to access these documents) as soon as possible. I. DISCUSSION A. Absent Adequate Environmental Review, the Project's Residential Density and Commercial Intensity Should Not be Increased Over the Character and Amount of Development Described and Analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The proposed substantial increases in residential density and total commercial use area have the potential to cause increased traffic and may also increase traffic safety risks. This substantial increase in development intensity also precludes design options, such as increased setbacks, that could avoid or reduce Project impacts. The Project includes increased residential density for Parcel 7 of almost 20 units per acre.3 The Project also includes a substantial increase in floor area ratio ("FAR") for commercial development "from the 0.28 FAR assumed under the [EDSP] and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs" to i The updated EDSP is available at: https://www.dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30283/EDSP-updated- 111522?bidld=. Due to time restrictions and the unavailable EDSP EIRs, our review of background materials is currently incomplete. Accordingly, we may elect to submit follow-up comments on behalf of KOA following further review of the multi -tiered analyses. 2 The I/S and Addendum do not adequately incorporate by reference the information and analysis in the EDSP and the EDSP EIRs. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 443.) As a traffic expert familiar with Dublin's routine practice of approving GPA's for intensive development projects not anticipated in prior specific plans noted to the undersigned, "[t]racking all this is tedious stuff, in part because the City seems to have tried to make it as difficult as possible to do so." 3 Table B in the I/S inaccurately describes the Medium High (MH) Density Residential as "17.4" units per acre. Table A reveals that the planned residential density for parcel 7 is reported as "19.7" units per acre. These inconsistent descriptions of the Project must be resolved and corrected. 1082 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 3 0.60 FAR.4 This is more than double the previously analyzed and approved density.5 The Project's proposed increase in residential and commercial development density and intensity follows a pattern of previous similar increases approved by the City with the use of addenda to dated EIRs.6 Despite these substantial increases in density and development intensity, the I/S implausibly concludes there will be no associated changes to impacts previously analyzed. The I/S considers the "density" and "massing" of the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office ("GC/CO") uses when concluding the Project would not cause significant impacts, but completely disregards the substantial increase in commercial development intensity associated with this Project. As revised prior to City Council approval, the 1993 EIR considered commercial development consisting of "approximately 10.876 million square feet on approximately 806 acres" within the entire EDSP area.' The 2002 SEIR included 1.4 million square feet of commercial use within a 472-acre portion of the Specific Plan area.8 The 2005 SEIR analyzed 2,503,175 square feet of "commercial, office, light industrial and mixed - use development" within a 1,132-acre area. The subject 2024 Project calls for 3,299,670 s.f. of GC/CO uses within just a small portion (192 acres) of the 4,016-acre EDSP area.9 These escalating increases in commercial use authorizations, including the increases associated with the Project, constitute substantial changes in land use. An Addendum is the wrong form of CEQA document for analyzing the intense land use changes proposed for this Project. Addenda to EIRs are intended for "minor" changes to projects where adequate environmental review has already occurred, not for situations where, as here, major changes are proposed that may cause previously unanalyzed significant impacts.10 Here, the proposed changes described in the I/S include substantial increases in 4 I/S, p. 9. 5 See EDSP (Updated November 2022), Table 4.1. 6 See, e.g., Planning Commission Resolution 08-01, adopting CEQA Addendum for Anderson Property (PA 07- 037); see also, e.g., City Council Resolution 36-08, adopting another CEQA Addendum for portion of Anderson Property (Fallon Village) (PA 07-037). We hereby incorporate by reference all such addenda approved by the City. See Addendum to 1993 Specific Plan EIR, dated May 4, 1993, Initial Study Project Description. Subsequent approvals modified the amount of commercial/industrial development within the Specific Plan area to 8,991 million square feet. (See EDSP (Nov. 2022), Table 4.1, p. 31. 8 According to the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR, approximately 472 acres within the subject annexation area were within the EDSP area. The Project site is entirely within these 472 acres east of Fallon Road. See Exhibit A — Maps of 472-acre Annexation Area from 2002 Draft SEIR Appendices. The analysis of Project impacts assumes, without supporting evidence or proposed designations, conditions, or restrictions, that the "advanced manufacturing" uses will comprise the vast majority of commercial uses within the parcels designated GC/CO. Because manufacturing uses generate substantially less traffic than retail uses, this unsupported and unenforceable assumption may result in underestimated Project impacts. 10 See CEQA Guidelines, § 15164; see also Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 435-436 [change in building height from 75 to 90 feet was substantial change requiring major EIR revisions]; see also Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1405 [SEIR required to analyze increased impacts to police services]; see also Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo 1083 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 4 residential and commercial building density and intensity.' The Project includes 128 residential units on the 6.5-acre Parcel 7 (a higher density than described in the EDSP and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs) with minimal setbacks from Pandora Way (a street adjacent to a public park with scenic views).12 The Project also includes other changes not considered in the EDSP EIRs. The I/S and Addendum do not describe all of these changes (for example, in 2005, Parcel 7 and the area to the north, including Jordan Ranch Square, was within an area designated as "Fallon Village Center."13 These are not "minor technical changes or additions" for which the use of an EIR addendum is appropriate. Rather, as discussed further below, they are major changes that would cause new significant impacts not comprehensively analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The currently proposed major Project changes from the approved EDSP (as modified through subsequent City approvals) must be analyzed in a stand-alone project -level EIR. The need for project -specific environmental review is heightened here because the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2002 SEIR, and 2005 SEIR did not analyze the impacts of intensified development at a sufficient level of detail — instead, these "programmatic" analyses deferred such detailed analysis for subsequent environmental review. Additionally, circumstances have changed substantially since the EDSP EIRs were prepared and certified, independently warranting a new EIR for this Project. Changed circumstances, including the City's adoption of CAP 2030, recent enactment of state policies requiring net zero greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and mounting evidence of climate change impacts already more severe than predicted in 2005 also militate against reliance on a CEQA addendum as the environmental clearance document for this Project. Finally, a stand-alone EIR is warranted for this Project because the prior multi -level and disjointed environmental impact analyses, which rely upon complex tiering and incorporation of multiple historical documents by reference, do not satisfy CEQA's informational purposes. Because the City adopted statements of overriding considerations in connection with its approval of the EDSP in 1993 and the annexation and Fallon Village approvals in 2002 and 2005, respectively, analysis and disclosure of this Project's contribution to any recognized unmitigated impacts is especially appropriate to fully inform decisionmakers and the public. For these reasons, a project -level EIR would better inform the City's decision -makers and facilitate meaningful public participation. County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 609 [If substantial evidence shows that changes to project "might" cause previously unanalyzed environmental impacts then the adoption of an addendum is not permitted under CEQA], citing CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15164(b), 15384(a). 11 12 See I/S, pp. 6-9. See id., Figure 5. 13 See Exhibit B - Excerpts from 2005 Fallon Village Stage 1 Dev Plan. The design for Parcel 7 appears to deviate from design standards approved in 2005 for Fallon Village Center. However, the I/S does not even mention Fallon Village Center, let alone disclose the Project's deviations from the nearly 20-year-old plan for the area. 1084 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 5 B. Because the Project Will Potentially Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Significant Environmental Impacts, an EIR is Required; the Proposed Addendum is Improper. The I/S and Addendum rely heavily upon the outdated and incomplete analyses presented in the EDSP EIRs. The EDSP EIRs did not analyze several categories of impacts that the Project may cause, or they underestimated those impacts based upon inaccurate assumptions concerning the pattern of future development. These unanalyzed or inadequately analyzed impacts, include, but are not limited to: 1) Impacts to public open space and scenic vistas resulting from large-scale buildings located adjacent to a public park with minimal setbacks; 2) Cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project when combined with other past, present, and future development projects in the vicinity; 3) Traffic safety hazards on the streets surrounding Jordan Ranch Square (i.e., Twain Harte Rd., Pino Grande Rd., and Pandora Way) created by substantially increasing the number of residences dependent upon small streets for exclusive ingress and egress routes; and 4) Unanalyzed climate change impacts related to the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The above project -specific impacts, related to changes in land use patterns and increased development intensity associated with the Project, were not studied in the EDSP EIRs. Accordingly, City decisionmakers may not approve the Project or grant any permits for associated development projects until a full project -level EIR is prepared that fully addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. The environmental impact analysis must analyze the impacts of the proposed Project against existing conditions, and not a hypothetical situation where the previously approved but unbuilt version of the project is used as the environmental baseline.14 1. The Project, as Designed, Has the Potential to Cause Significant but Unmitigated Aesthetic Impacts The Project includes medium -high density residential development on Parcel 7. The massive buildings depicted on maps in the I/S would completely obstruct scenic views from 14 See Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 709, quoting Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal. App. 3d 350, 354; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Ca1.4th 310, 321. 1085 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 6 Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantages.15 The proposed building density and intensity on Parcel 7 does not appear to be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirement to "[s]ite buildings on the downslope side of streets, where feasible, so the main mass of the building is below street level, allowing views over roofs from the street (see Figure 7.31)."16 The I/S describes mitigation measures adopted in connection with the 1993 Specific Plan EIR that are intended to minimize impacts to public views and scenic resources. For example, MM 3.8/1.0 requires development projects to maintain views from major travel corridors and public spaces. (I/S, p. 19.) The Project does not incorporate this mitigation measure with respect to views from Jordan Ranch Square and the adjacent neighborhood streets. MM 3.8/8.1 recommends (but does not require)17 that "projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors ... submit a detailed visual analysis with development project application." (I/S, p. 20.) The time to prepare and submit a visual analysis for the Project is now, before the City approves intensive levels of residential development on Parcel 7 that may foreclose modifications in response to a future analysis. The I/S acknowledges that the Project increases development intensity over that analyzed in the EDSP EIRs but assumes, without substantiation, that the above mitigation measures (and others) will be effectively implemented to avoid all potentially significant impacts.18 However, this unsupported assumption is insufficient to assure the public and decision -makers that the impacts to scenic vistas will be completely avoided or minimized to the extent feasible, as required. The I/S also relies upon generalized statements with no substantiation to conclude that changes to land use development authorizations associated with the Project would not cause any significant aesthetic impacts.19 The analysis should be revised to specifically describe the changes in building density and development intensity that the Project would entail and address the impacts associated with those changes. For example, the impact analysis must address any physical changes to the proposed development associated with the Project's substantial 15 See Sachin Bhandari comments regarding Project, dated June 4, 2024, pp. 8-11. 16 EDSP, p. 144. 17 This mitigation measure uses the precatory word "should" rather than the mandatory word "shall" thereby limiting enforceability and undermining the requirement. 18 The I/S also relies upon as yet undeveloped "guidelines" to "further mitigate the visual impact of the building heights and massing." (I/S, p. 23.) Because these guidelines have not been developed and incorporated into the Project, this approach constitutes improper deferral of analysis and mitigation. 19 For example, the I/S explains that "[b]ecause the general type and massing of the proposed buildings would not be significantly different than those considered in the EDSP EIRs, the difference in density would not substantially increase the severity of this previously identified impact." (I/S. p. 23.) 1086 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 7 additional commercial use square footage that may result in impacts to viewsheds and additional light and glare impacts. 2. The Project Will Exacerbate Neighborhood Traffic Congestion. Currently, the small roads surrounding Jordan Ranch Square are heavily impacted by the residents of existing developments; neighbors have reported frequent speeding incidents, collision near misses, illegal u-turns, and wrong -way traffic.20 These existing traffic and safety problems would be exacerbated by the proposed development within Parcel 7 because the residents of this proposed development would utilize the same small feeder roads that are already heavily impacted by neighborhood traffic. The analysis of the Project's traffic impacts does not consider the recent substantial increase in local traffic caused by recently constructed and pending neighboring development projects. Development of Parcel 7 into medium high density residential will add significant traffic to Twain Harte Rd., Pino Grande Rd., and Pandora Way. The traffic impact analysis is premised on the following land use pattern: 238 multifamily dwelling units, 2,888,400 square feet of advanced manufacturing, a 314-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of retail and 100,000 square feet of office (based on a 0.60 FAR). Because manufacturing uses generate far fewer daily trips than retail uses (daily rate of 4.75 trips per thousand square feet verses a daily rate of 37.01 trips per thousand square feet) and office uses (daily rate of 10.84 per thousand square feet), the traffic impact analysis will substantially underestimate Project impacts if the assumed amount of manufacturing uses is overestimated or the assumed amount of retail space is underestimated. To prevent Project unanalyzed and unmitigated Project traffic and air quality impacts, the approval documents for the Project must restrict or designate the uses within the parcels now proposed to be designated "GC/CO" to ensure the assumed levels of manufacturing, retail, and office uses are (and remain) accurate.21 3. The Project Will Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Traffic Safety Impacts. The I/S relies upon a conclusory and unsupported analysis to conclude that the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature.22 The primary route for 20 See comments to Planning Commission from Sachin Bhandari, dated June 4, 2024, pp. 2-7; see also videos posted to Youtube: Car make u-turn and hits mannequin: https://youtu.be/Rt4tKhod4gw ; car goes wrong way at night: https://youtu.be/8kN58QHVNVw ; car speeds: https://youtube.com/shorts/bXflcpofd M. 21 Given the City's pattern of analyzing and approving development at lower levels, only to later increase and intensify the allowed levels of development, while processing later changes using CEQA addenda, KOA is justifiably concerned that the assumed levels of manufacturing uses could later be shifted to other commercial uses that would cause increased impacts (e.g., retail or office). 22 I/S, p. 165. 1087 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 8 ingress and egress from the residential development proposed for Parcel 7 is via Twain Harte Rd., Pino Grande Rd., and Pandora Way. There is already heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic on these small neighborhood streets.23 Children attending Cottonwood Creek Elementary School cross Pino Grande Road each morning as they utilize the sidewalk on the south side of Central Avenue.24 Morning commute traffic creates extended back ups along each of the three streets surrounding Jordan Ranch Square. Yet, inexplicably, the I/S concludes the Project's contribution of traffic from 198 residential units within Parcel 7 will not significantly impact neighborhood traffic. The required EIR for the Project must address the significant traffic safety impacts associated with substantially intensifying residential development in an area near an elementary school that is already experiencing high levels of peak hour traffic. Mitigation measures addressing pedestrian safety should be developed to minimize the significant impacts. 4. The I/S Improperly Omits Analysis of the Project's Potential Contribution to Climate Change Impacts. The I/S acknowledges that "Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the EDSP EIRs."25 Despite the widely acknowledged rapidly escalating seriousness of this issue, the I/S claims that no such analysis is required for the Project based on a constrained reading of what is "required" under CEQA. At the time the EDSP EIRs were prepared and certified, lead agencies were generally not required to conduct analysis of climate change impacts under CEQA. Since then, the state has enacted legislation and regulations that require much more robust analysis in this area.26 The escalating global problem of climate change has become increasingly apparent since 2005 when the environmental impacts of planned growth within the EDSP area were last 23 See Sachin Bhandari comments, dated June 4, 2024, pp. 2-7. 24 See, e.g., Final Local Transportation Analysis, Appendix A, Raw Count Data sheets for Pino Grande Rd -- Central Pkwy (.pdf p. 63). According to Dublin's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, "Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary, and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk access with around 36 percent of students living within a 10-minute walk." (p. 11, available at Available at: https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32269/Bicycle-and- Pedestrian-Plan-1302023?bidld=. 25 I/S, p. 98. The I/S explains that, because the issue of greenhouse gas emissions was known at the time the EDSP EIRs were prepared, no environmental review of this issue is required. Ibid. 2e See McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, 91 ["Over the past two decades, the State of California has expressed a growing commitment to addressing climate change"]; see also Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR"), General Plan Guidelines, Ch. 8, Climate Change, available at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR C8 final.pdf.. 1088 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 9 considered. More than two years ago, on August 9, 2021, the UN Secretary -General Antonio Guterres made this statement concerning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") Working Group 1 report on the physical science basis of the sixth assessment: Today's IPCC Working Group 1 report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse -gas emissions from fossil -fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk. Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible. The internationally agreed threshold of 1.5°C is perilously close. We are at imminent risk of hitting 1.5°C in the near term. The only way to prevent exceeding this threshold is by urgently stepping up our efforts and pursuing the most ambitious path.27 Since the time of this unprecedented alarm, scientific certainty about the causes of climate change and its effects has increased in pace with rising global average temperatures. The IPCC's latest report summarizes the dire situation as follows: Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land -use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals.28 News of natural disasters fueled by climate change and responses to the global emergency already dominate the headlines.29 In 2016, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 32 ("SB 32") thereby adopting the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. "This 40 percent reduction is widely acknowledged as a necessary interim target to ensure that California meets 27 See United Nations, press release, Secretary -General Calls Latest IPCC Climate Report 'Code Red for Humanity', Stressing 'Irrefutable' Evidence of Human Influence, available at: https://press.un.org/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm. 28 See IPCC, CLIMATE CHANGE 2023, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 4, available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6Lyr/downloads/report/IPCC AR6 SYR SPM.pdf. 29 See, e.g., NBC News, Extreme disasters are overwhelming safety systems not designed for climate -fueled events, dated August 16, 2023, available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/maui-wildfires- disaster-safety-resilience-climate-change-rcna99347; see also DW, Is climate change behind all extreme weather events?, dated May 26, 2024 https://www.dw.com/en/is-climate-change-behind-all-extreme-weather-events/a- 69107065; see also BBC, How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods, dated April 24, 2024, available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58073295. 1089 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 10 its longer -range goal of reducing [GHG] emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050." In 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, establishing the statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. In 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20, establishing a 2035 deadline to phase out new sales of passenger vehicles and light trucks with internal combustion engines.30 In 2022, AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, established a statewide goal to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve net negative emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels. Through CARB's Updated Scoping Plan, the state has refined its strategy for accomplishing the ambitious goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions.31 California continues to be an international leader in addressing climate change. The City is undoubtedly aware of these important issues and CEQA's associated analytical requirements, having adopted its Climate Action Plan 2030 ("CAP 2030") in 2020.32 Nevertheless, the I/S and Addendum for the Project do not even mention the City's CAP 2030 or evaluate the Project's consistency with the measures described in CAP 2030. The City should analyze the Project's consistency with the City's adopted CAP 2030 and otherwise meaningfully assess the Project's climate change impacts. If the Project is not consistent with CAP 2030, then subsequent analysis of the Project's contribution to climate change impacts is required. 5. The Project's Contributions to Cumulative Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed. The I/S inaccurately asserts that "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 EDSP EIRs "33 The EDSP EIRs have incrementally increased the density and intensity of development within the area well above the level of development anticipated in 1993 when the initial EIR was prepared and certified and above the level of development anticipated in 2002 and 2005 when the two SEIRs were certified. The tactic employed for this Addendum, building off extremely dated EIRS like the East Dublin Specific Plan EIR and its subsequent Addendum appears to be part of a regular pattern 3° See Executive Order N-79-20, available at: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO- N-79-20-CIimate.pdf. 31 See ; see also CARB, 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 7 ["In order to remain below 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot of that threshold, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions need to reach net zero by 2050"], available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf. 32 See City's CAP 2030, available at: https://du blin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24447/Climate-Action-Plan- 2030-And-Beyond. 33 I/S, p. 183, underlining added. 1090 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 11 for the City.34 Since 2005, including the one for Fallon Village, the City had approved at least 46 General Plan Amendments (GPAs), mostly to facilitate major land use developments that were not previously consistent with the General Plan. In light of these GPAs, intuitively, one would expect that transportation impacts from development within the EDSP would be more severe than estimated in 2005. The Project continues the City's pattern of approving very large projects that weren't considered in the EDSP EIR or that of its SEIRs by again proposing development density and intensity beyond what the EDSP EIR's anticipated and analyzed and utilizing a CEQA addendum for environmental impact analysis. Consequently, the cumulative impacts of the Project, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably probable future projects in the vicinity have not been adequately analyzed. The City should evaluate the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts in the context of other development projects within the EDSP area that are more intensive than anticipated in the EDSP EIRs. C. Project Design Changes Would Avoid or Minimize Unanalyzed Potentially Significant Impacts. Many of the potentially significant impacts described above could be avoided or minimized if the Project proponent is willing to modify the design in specific ways. These recommended changes to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Modify access to Parcel 7 so that primary vehicle ingress and egress is from Croak Road and/or Dublin Boulevard; 2. Remove or limit large-scale residential development in the area within Parcel 7 adjacent to Pandora Way; and 3. Fund sidewalk improvements within Jordan Ranch Square.35 If the Project applicant agrees to these changes, or a modified design that incorporates these recommendations (or substantially similar design changes), KOA may be willing to withdraw their opposition to the Project. 34 Since the adoption of the EDSP and approval of the Fallon Village SEIR, the City prepared a comprehensive amendment of the General Plan (adopted in November 2017). The updated General Plan includes tables quantifying permitted development at that stage. But there are no tables quantifying allowable development in 2005. Likewise, the EDSP was revised between 2016 and 2020. There are tables quantifying currently permissible development but none facilitating comparisons to 2005. The opaque information concerning gradually intensified development within the City does not facilitate public participation, informed decisionmaking, and effective consideration of environmental consequences of those considered in the EDPS EIRs. 35 This list, based on information currently available, is not comprehensive. Following further review of the I/S, Addendum, EDSP EIRs and other available information, KOA may recommend additional changes to the Project's design. 1091 City of Dublin, Planning Commission and City Planner Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum June 4, 2024 Page 12 D. KOA Requests Notice Concerning Further Environmental Review and Public Hearings Concerning the Project. Please provide the undersigned with notice of all CEQA documentation completed for the Project and all public meetings or hearings concerning the Project. Please also provide such notice to KOA representative Sachin Bhandari at the following email address: sachin.bhandari.msc@gmail.com. II. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that: (1) the Project not include development intensity or density that exceeds the amount of residential and commercial development allowed under the (as modified in 2002 and 2005), (2) if the Project is intensified in any way over the development levels approved in the EDSP, the City prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration for the Project, as appropriate, and (3) KOA receives timely notice during the remainder of the environmental review and administrative process. Thank you for considering the above comments submitted on behalf of KOA. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the comments and recommendations expressed herein, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Jason W. Holder cc: (via email only) Client contacts Attachments: Exhibit A: Maps of 472-acre Annexation Area from 2002 Draft SEIR Appendices Exhibit B: Excerpts from 2005 Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan 1092 1 093 [-� =_.'y•`�, : :.��400-' . ...,� f, •~`\� • • ,,• 1 fir/ / ( /\`✓( Y111C-.,��u._— etemenerA w \\ .M f i 1 ,r� !c .:tee. �\• ��� 3 `7 d v 914�iitupeiTtsi1b11Y'po.psd ^;y• �.\. • �• ..;,�C�•�:ti_.�• f ~l. 1„A, 1094 G � 1 a ,. a zr 400' KV MACKAY& SQmPS 0 0 a 0 0 I-580 East Dublin Properties i - EXHIBIT 4 Lands within the L Eastern Dublin Specific Plan I Lands Within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area Caayoa Road 494ap-Eni1eshibil4-EDSPIaads.psd 1095 LAND USE MAP N V 0 i i AGRICULTURE. 2743.9 Acres 1 mop 1\19149\sup=E1.R\exh1b1t5-EDGPA 1096 ES - Elementary School JR -Junior High School L- Low Density Residential M - Medium Density Residential Mil - Medium High Density Residential NS - Neighborhood Square NP- Neighborhood Park CP- Communiry Park OS - Open Sped RRA. Rural Residential /Agricultnie NC - Neighborhood Commercial GC - General Commercial I - Industrial Park 1 097 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Exhibit B .,,e'rl'—';.r:i':'7...,;'-l'..''..:.''''''''‘.+'*51::-...:,,,,,':!F.,.1.4.:!..1110J''''''''''''' ;.,..,„:.'srj.:4'.;;. u i 4 i` w • 77y ` i 4 ry # ,i R +.,wow f �, >k� .x> , -,# ^K 3.9%,ti!'dilpe '° 1 aCi h Q}, "" �ri >°� 11.O. 3tix ,rl�y'.1{..% ', _`}r fpn a h% •'d < � �;i� ri.xf wig �fir 0'1.'� e 1 Y,tr }i'. ��: ;,, ;w FAI.ION V1l..IAGE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA STAGE I OCTOBER 31, 2005 RECEIVr'n DEC 1 2 2005 DUBLIN PLi1W>i11Yl.t EXHIBI 1098 • • • I ALLON VILLAGE CENTER BASIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES •• Create a vital and social mixed -use Village Center that provides for • the needs of Fallon Village residents. • • Emphasize inviting, small-town, pedestrian friendly ambiance yet rc- • main consistent with the community's agratian theme. • • Emphasize variety and diversity in architectural design. • • Front buildings onto the neighborhood square and central. parkway 4 Provide strong pedestrian links to adjacent residential development, • community park and open space. • • Emphasize design of residential scale ground floor facades along retail edges. • • 'fuck on site parking behind buildings. • • Widen sidewalks in front of retail uses to provided outdoor display • and dining. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Underground all utilities to the extent practical, or place behind buildings or in other non -visible locations. • Bike and pedes- • trlan connecto through park • • • Community Park • • • • • • • Neighborhood Square Focus of Village Center Medium Density Residential Retail Uses Edge Central Parkway and Surrounding Square Parking Area Diagonal Parking Edges Neighborhood square Medium High Density Residential and Semi -Public Uses 1099 • SITE PLANNING; • The design of the Village Center shall promote pedestrian activity through the use of wide sidewalks, plazas, a. neighborhood square or other gathering area, and human scaled architecture_ • The neighborhood square shall front directly onto Central Parkway. • Buildings shall be placed so as to establish a strong edge along Central • Parkway and the neighborhood square. • • • • • • • Retail continuity shall be maintained along pedestrian -oriented front• - ages; the. pedestrian shopping experience shall not be interrupted by 1 parking lots or blank walls.• • Placement of parking and trash areas shall be sensitive to any adjacent • residential units. Trash facilities shall be enclosed within structures, • (such as walls, fences, and trellises) that blend with the architectural styles, tnaterials, and colors of the adjacent buildings. • ARCH i.TECTLI RAL • Buildings shall orient toward neighborhood square. and Central Parkway • • • • Buildings along Central Parkway and Neighborhood square should • he built to and parallel with the from setback line providing subtle • 12" offsets at least every 75 feet, and as permitted by allowance encroachments, such as outdoor dining areas and entry plazas. • • Along Central Parkway, provide special detailing such as: unique. • door and window Treatments that differentiate for individual shops for retail uses • Enhance retail frontage along Central. Parkway and the neighbor- hood square with awnings of various sizes, shapes and colors; and • store signage and displays. • } ncourage residential uses along Central Parkway to front on to the street. • • For retail uses avoid one-sided architecture. The side rear facades in the Village Center commercial area will be actively used therefore they should have an appearance similar to a "front" in regard to doors, windows, etc. Although the architecture treatment may be simplified and vary according to function, these elevations should remain con- sistent through style, use of materials, colors and details. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Li NEIGHBORHOOD S IJARE • The neighborhood square is the focus of the.' village center. This cen- tral green should he designed as social gathering places for the com- munity. Allowable uses should include spaces to accommodate ele- ments such as fountains, outdoor dining, specimen trees, public art and special public events. • Provide convenient pedestrian links to retail uses and adjacent resides tial development. CIRCULATION AND PARKING • On -site parking shall he located behind buildings to the extent pos- sible, • Pedestrian connections from the rear parking area to the storefront edge and to public streets shall be integrated into the site design and be clearly marked. These connections shall be emph.asixed with land- scaping, circulation design, and siting of buildings. ▪ Where parking lots are not separated from roadways, architectural ele- ments (such as trellises, fences, and other landscaping) shall be used to screen the view of parking lots front the street. • Parking lot design shall address best management practices for storm water management. • Parking areas shall he landscaped and shaded with canopy trees. Trees shall be planted within parking lots at a ratio of one tree for every six (fi) parking stalls. Trees may be clustered in concentrated planting areas to break up large parking lot surfaces. • Pedestrian emphasis in the street designs with convenient crossing points at parking and street intersections. • Parallel on -street parking shall be provided along Central Parkway and diagonal parking around neighborhood square to provide both con- venience and a "Main Street" ambiance. ▪ In front of residential uses, the 8' wide sidewalk will be separated from the street by an 8' wide landscaped parkway. Adjacent residential uses should be directly accessed from this sidewalk. 1101 • • The sidewalk in front of the retail uses shall be expanded to 16' width with 5x5 tree cut outs along the curbs for street trees. The retail uses shall be pulled forward to enhance the street edge width sidewalk shall accommodate window shopping, outdoor merchants and cafes. • Provide convenient connection points to multi -use trail along open space corridor through community park. • 1-:ncourage development of sidewalk cafes and indoor/outdoor res- taurants with recessed storefronts to promote pedestrian interaction along; Central Parkway and the neighborhood square frontage. Storefront Special Paving and Landscaping to Emphasize Pedestrian Connection • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1102 w From: Sachin Bhandari To: Jason Holder Cc: Planning Commission; Crystal De Castro; Shaenine Turner; rakesh surana; Henry Samra; roslynn hill Subject: Re: Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 10:11:21 PM Attachments: Letter to City of Dublin - Fallon 580 Project Comment Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Please also see attached my comment letter regarding the Fallon 580 Project. I look forward to discussing this matter at the June I lth meeting, representing the interests of the Kingswood HOA, a community of —110 residential units adjacent to this project. Thank you, Sachin On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 4:48 PM Jason Holder < Good afternoon, wrote: Please find the attached comments concerning the above -referenced project, submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission on behalf of Kingswood Owners Association. The comments are submitted in anticipation of Planning Commission consideration of the Project at its next meeting on June 11, 2024. Sincerely, -Jason Jason W. Holder Holder Law Group Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney -client and/or the attorney work -product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you 1103 6/4/2024 To the City of Dublin Planning Commission and of Dublin, The City of Dublin Community Development Department's Planning Division has released an Initial Study and Local Transportation Analysis that fail to adequately consider and avoid or mitigate the impacts of the Dublin Fallon 580 Project, particularly at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway. The comments that follow describe and document local traffic conditions and explain, based on available evidence, the Project's likely exacerbated traffic and traffic safety issues. This writer recognizes that the informed opinion of someone who is very familiar with local traffic conditions but not a "traffic expert" with regards to traffic planning has limited probative value. However, it does not take an 'expert' to look at the traffic planning report released, looking particularly at Pino Grande and Twain Harte Rd, and conclude that the City has not adequately planned for the traffic impacts to our neighborhood. Furthermore this letter will serve as evidence that the City was made aware of safety issues regarding pedestrians but chose to ignore them. Let's start with some simple facts regarding the existing traffic along Pino Grande, Twain Harte, and Central Parkway today. The Pino Grande and Twain Harte Roads are primarily utilized by Kingswood HOA - a community of 110 residential units. The 'Dobbins Loop' side of our community comprises 8 buildings and has roughly 45 units. During a typical morning, most of the commuters from this side will make a left turn at Pino Grande to access Central parkway which is the only road connecting our community with Fallon Rd & 580. The 'Camino Loop' side of the community comprises 12 buildings and can be estimated at roughly 65 units. The commuters on this side usually make a right from Twain Harte Rd onto Central Parkway and make a U-turn where the road currently ends. See image below for reference: Kingswood H0A - Camino Loop - -65 LJni1 1 1104 This is what traffic at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway currently looks like at approximately 8 am in the morning on a weekday. It is heavily backed up with significant pedestrian traffic: The traffic study characterizes existing conditions of this intersection as LOS B (p. 176) which seems to be a reasonable estimation of traffic. Generated with Mg Version 2024 (SP 0-1) Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: VISTRO Scenario 1: 1 Existing AM Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 15: Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 11.0 HCM 7th Edition Level Of Service: B 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.359 2 1105 From P. 176 of the report, one would assume that these volume are direct measurements of the existing conditions for this intersection: Volumes Name Pino Grande Road Panorama Drive Central Parkway Central Parkway Base Volume Input [vehlh] 37 2 0 1 4 127 97 84 6 0 91 2 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage (%] 0.0a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [vehlh] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [vehth] 37 2 0 1 4 127 97 84 6 0 91 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total l5-Minute Volume [veh/h] 17 1 0 0 2 60 46 40 3 0 43 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/hj 70 4 0 2 8 240 183 158 11 0 172 4 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 117 1 103 89 However where the traffic study fails is in its consideration of the cumulative impact of traffic. The Croak Road Project, adjacent to our community is expected to bring online more than 500 residential units. Like our community, the main artery connecting this community to Fallon Rd / 580 is Central Parkway. While Croak Rd in the future may also offer a connection to Fallon Rd, the residential units in this community will still be utilizing Cottonwood Creek as their local school and so for an 8 am rush hour estimation, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of traffic with school age children would directly access Central to drop their children off at school. The extension of Central Parkway due to the Croak Rd Development will in turn make doing a U-turn where Central ends impractical with ongoing traffic coming the other way. The Camino Loop side traffic from Kingswood would instead route around Jordan Ranch Square Park. Twain Harte does not allow for left turns onto Central. Finally the Fallon Road Project itself, if brought to fruition under the current plan, would add an additional 128 units online, all of which would need to take Pino Grande to Central in order to access Fallon Road / 580. See image below. 3 1106 Kingswood HOA - Dobbins Loop - -45 Units Jordon Rprrch diUBre Kingswood HOA - Carnino Loop - -65 Units „ Fallon Rd Project Parcel 7 As shown above, under real world assumptions, the utilization of Pino G ande will go from -45 residential units making a left turn onto Central in the morning to -238 residential units making a left turn. The utilization of Central Parkway will go from -65 residential units heading westbound to -500+ residential units heading westbound What does the traffic report say about the cumulative impact plus project for this new traffic pattern? P.924 - estimates - with complete implausability - that the traffic conditions would remain at LOS B despite an approximate 7 fold increase in terms of residential units in the immediate area surrounding this intersection and all of these residential units being assigned to Cottonwood Creek K8 school. Generated with Els Version 2024 (SP 0-1) Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: VISTRO Scenario 11: 11 Cumulative AM Plus Project Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 15: Central Parkway & Panorama Drive/Pino Grande Road All -way stop Delay (sec I veh): 12.0 HCM 7th Edition Level Of Service: B 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.377 4 1107 There are a few things about these cumulative impact numbers (found on p. 924) that immediately are suspect: 1) First the pedestrian volumes at this intersection have not increased at all from the existing conditions to the cumulative impact plus project, despite the fact that 128 new units are built right off of Pino Grande Road. This report assumes that literally no one from the Fallon Rd development project (Parcel 7) will walk on or around the Jordan Ranch Park directly adjacent to the community or walk to the school. 2) This assessment also assumes no increased vehicular flow west bound on Central Parkway at the intersection in question, despite 500+ residential units coming online whose major point of access is Central Parkway to Fallon Rd / 580 is Central Parkway. Implausibly, none of these people would use Central Parkway to access their homes or Cottonwood Creek. Iniarsad.wn Setup Nang Pro Grande 17aad Pam -Tama Orrvj Central Parkway C rrlral Parkway r�r. Ivoritt01,4 SULrtrlrigIinrl ER61177u110 V:esZOrr.inr' Lane ConRguralion 4 r 47 I- 1hlu 11- Timing r ment LinThru R•gh1 Left Thni Right Lett T Rgh1 Left Thad Right Lane VIM [1t] 12.O0 12.00 12.0D 1200 1200 1210 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.0] 1200 Na. of Lanes la ChM, Pocked v 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Enlry Fooke1 Lerrgth 11ttj 100.00 275.0D 100.00 Nc 9r Lames n ell POp99t C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ed Packet Length Ill Speed [mPhI 30A0 36.00 30.00 36.60 GredalW4] 0 60 000 O.OG 000 Crosswalk Yea Yea Yea Yes Worn,' Name Pilo Grasda Road Panorama Drive Caeball Parkway i; ental Parkway Saha Voltam trpatjvelu14 79 3 10 1 4 127 97 84 6 2 91 2 Base 'Alums Adluet emt Fackr 1.0030 1A000 1.0000 1.0460 1.0000 1.0000 LOW 1.0003 Haevy Wahk:lea Pereeniayej9+4 D.00 0.04 0.00 4A0 WOO OAa 2.10 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0110 Growth Faciar 1.10030 1.06190 1.0000 1.0003 1.601:0 1.0000 1.0050 1.0000 1.0000 1.0=1 1.6000 1.0000 In-Prxeea Volume Ivehml 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5iLe cenereled Trips [o1I1II] 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qlaertea *npe [re►Irtrl 0 D 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-hy TdpS Neh'h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fxletrg Stla Mjuem.en1 Vollrae [vehm] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 Other Mums [watt h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tatal Ho,rrly Volume [vehml 70 3 10 1 4 127 97 84 6 2 9i 2 Peak H6urFaela, 0.5306 0.5300 0.5300 0.5300 0.5303 0.5300 0.5300 0.5304 0.5300 D.5303 0.5303 0.5300 Other AdluslmentFacLor 1.0000 1.0030 10000 1.000] 1.60M 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0003 1.0000 1.0000 Total t5i.4nuee Vdume 37 1 5 O 2 90 45 40 3 1 43 1 [x9l91I 1-09 6 1 1 Peimeman vciune [ped91] 117 1 103 &9 One does not need to be a traffic `expert' to question this assessment. 5 1108 Realistically, with close to 650 new residential units coming online which will pass through the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway on their daily commutes with regularity, the intersection would likely change from being an LOS oday to LOS r even worse during peak hours. This intersection does not have a traffic light, and vehicular traffic making a left turn from Pino Grande will likely be backed up around the entire Jordan Ranch Park during rush hour times if the plan as conceived comes to pass. The other major issue that the traffic report doesn't address is pedestrian traffic physically around the Jordan Ranch park. The image below is what a typical evening looks like on Twain Harte Rd. Pedestrians walk in and around the park (which has not even yet been built) extensively. Because there is no sidewalk on the actual border of the park, it is common for pedestrians to walk directly on the road. 6 1109 This has led to many near incidents of cars almost hitting pedestrians. The situation has gotten bad enough that a concerned neighbor who lives adjacent to the intersection began setting up a mannequin around the park to make vehicular traffic aware of pedestrians. This youtube link captures how drivers disregard pedestrians around the park by Pino Grande and Central Parkway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt4tKhod4gw This youtube link shows a car - who not wanting to make a U-turn at the end of Central Parkway - drove the WRONG way along Central Parkway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kN58QHVNVw These videos were both captured by a neighbor living directly adjacent to the intersection in question, months before this project was even on our community's radar. As it is today - Pino Grande and Twain Harte already have issues with poor vehicular flow and risk of pedestrian i nj u ry. After -650 more residential units come online, and with -128 of them using Pino Grande and Twain Harte as the sole points of entry and exit - there will be a very serious risk to pedestrians around the neighborhood. Jordan Ranch Park will be completed at the time of construction, and most of these pedestrians will be children and families utilizing the park. What should be done about this? The Croak development is already in progress, however the Fallon Rd Project - particularly Parcel 7 is what creates the problematic traffic around the park. What should clearly be done is add more roads to connect this community to the grid rather than overtax the existing small residential roads. 7 1110 Rather than have Pino Grande or Twain Harte connect with Parcel 7 - only pedestrian paths should allow people from the future community to access the park and walk to the school. Sidewalks along the park should be improved. Parcel 7 should be directly connected with the Dublin Blvd extension and Croak Road which would make far more sense for both the future community and for Kingswood HOA. The landowners and future developers would need only —400 - 800 meters worth of road. They should build it rather than overtax the existing roadways. At the very least, this would alleviate 128 residential units worth of traffic along Pino Grande. The City of Dublin and planning department would do well to remember, it is NOT the duty of the planning department to MAXIMIZE the value of land. Rather it is the duty of the planning department to BALANCE the interests of the landowners to that of their adjacent neighbors. The plan as it exists today is unbalanced. Finally, a much less tangible impact, but important one nonetheless is the character of the neighborhood that is being affected by this plan. Currently from the Jordan Ranch Park, there are sweeping views of the entire valley that are unobstructed by any buildings or edifices. These views extend all the way to Pleasanton and the mountain ridges surrounding Amador Valley. Shadow Cliffs regional park and its lakes are visible from the vantage point. 8 Below are pictures of the view: 9 1112 The current plan would put a building directly facing the park, right up against the boundary line and block this view. It seems remarkable that the City of Dublin Planning Department would even consider allowing this. It removes a significant public benefit with no compensation for the residents of the area, and the only benefits going to the current landowner. This should obviously be changed. Below is a photo representing the same view but now with medium -high residential buildings built right up against the edge of the park. Does this change the character of the neighborhood? I think most people who live in the neighborhood would think so. 10 1113 While Parcel 7 may be zoned for medium -high density buildings, nothing allows them to build right up to the property boundary. There should be a minimum setback from the hills preserving the views from the park and the adjacent community. If necessary the number of units allows for Parcel 7 should be reduced to accomplish this. The City needs to remember — the job is NOT to MAXIMIZE value of a particular landowner but to BALANCE the interests of the community which the current plan fails to do. See an image below of how this might be rectified. The adjacent units right on the property line can simply be removed from the plan. The reduced number of units would reasonably satisfy the medium -high density zoning allowed to the developer and would preserve the views for the rest of the community: 11 1114 rcw.n YF KrA ►AP . TYA:T 0663 ii>[' EX. CENTRAL PARKWAY AN RANCH TRACI $157 94w M s5 gx: hoghtimx i flF fu rxntre r-EE — TRACT d463 Yrfi_� 'RtJ[AULASS.E':+. J'U'•iu.vEM1' Ringwood HOA TRACT 3 i J7 73e H `- API Finally, I would like to note that the way in which the planning department has conducted itself has been shameful: • Sending out bad zoom links to the community meeting held on March 27th, 2024 and then rescheduling the community meeting to April 3rd in order to drive down attendance (but somehow correct zoom links went to the landowner / developer?). • Claiming in the rescheduled meeting on April 3rd, 2024 that the City Planner had no knowledge of when this issue would be taken up in a future planning commission meeting, despite being the same person to prepare the recommendations on the planning commission agenda ahead of the April 23rd meeting, which posted on or around April 16th. These meetings and agendas are planned months in advance. It strains credulity to believe that the City Planner had no knowledge of when the subject would be taken up, given the fact that she posted an agenda with this topic one week later to the planning commission website. • Not releasing relevant reports - such as the traffic analysis or environmental review until shortly before important meetings. These underhanded tactics have been noticed and frankly discourage open and honest discourse. The City Planning Department should remember that they work for the Citizens of Dublin NOT the developers. If citizens come forward with concerns, the appropriate action here 12 1115 is to address them - not sweep them under the rug. We hope the City Council and Planning Commission take notice and address these issues with the Planning Department. We also hope the City Council and Planning Commission will delay any votes until there can be a more thorough discussion of these plans with mitigations for the concerns outlined above. Personally, I support development, and think it is important to the economy and tax base of Dublin. But I support well -PLANNED development, and this project is being rushed. Best, Sachin Bhandari Kingswood HOA Board Member & Citizen of Dublin cc: City Council 13 1116 From: Sachin Bhandari To: Crystal De Castro Cc: Cathy Wells; Andrea Blanchard; roslynn hill; Shaenine Turner; Henry Samra; rakesh surana; com; Planning Commission; Subject: Re: Public Hearing Notice - Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033) Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 11:42:58 PM Attachments: image001.png imaae002.onq image.pnq imaae.onq image.pnq imaae.onq image.pnq Since I have added the planning commission to this thread, we are specifically discussing the following development attached the pictures below. We - the board members of an HOA representing —100 owners directly adjacent to parcel 7 - would urge you to halt any votes with regards to this development until a proper review has been completed by the local community. The City of Dublin has failed in its duty to hold fair and transparent meetings by: - -sending out false zoom links on the day of its March 27th Community Mtg - which was then rescheduled so as to drive down participation. I believe this because EVERY member from our community had issues with the zoom link, but strangely the developer / land owner had working zoom links for the March 27th meeting - almost as if they received different zoom links from the rest of us. - -stating in a rescheduled meeting held on April 3rd that the City planners had no idea when any future votes would be held. Then shortly after the votes were planned for an April 14th planning commission meeting. How could the City Planning staff not be aware of a vote for planning commission 11 days after our April 3rd meeting? They are the ones making recommendations to you. Almost as if we were told something so as not to show up and make our opinions known for the April 14 meeting. This vote was thankfully postponed for other reasons -- and I would urge you NOT to take this up in your May meeting. - -stating that members of the public would be notified of a traffic report that would be released. Actually, no one was notified. It was quietly posted on the Dublin development site - - as if members on the public should revisit the site EVERY DAY between the development meeting and the planning commission meeting to stay informed. My advice to the planning commission is to play no part in these bizarre tactics to keep the community uninformed about the Fallon 580 project. Our community has an issue specifically with Parcel 7 from that project, which is directly adjacent to us. It has been planned poorly, with no setbacks. The Traffic Study is clearly deficient and does not take into account the traffic impact on specifically the roads in and around the park that are the ONLY points of entry into and out of both our community and the future proposed site. If you are serious in your civic duty about planning a City for EVERYONE, then I would tell Crystal and Cathy to go back to the drawing board on this project and work out a plan that has a far smaller traffic impact and that has proper SETBACKS. 1117 Asking the developer to incorporate setbacks and a feeder road into the community that connects with the Dublin Blvd Extension or Croak Rd is completely reasonable - and affect only ONE parcel in their massive development project. These are compeltely reasonable modifications that the Planning Commission can recommend that still facilitates Dublin being a pro business City but also one that takes into account the needs of its existing community. Catheryn, Janine, Renata, Stephen, Matthew, Wahida, Nicholas -- seriously, vote NO on your next meeting with regards to this development plan, and KEEP voting NO until they Crystal and Cathy fix the issues with Parcel 7 that they are clearly aware of and don't want you to know about. Dublin Fallon 580 Planning Application # Application Type Application Submittal Date General Plan Land Use Specific Plan Area Zoning Project Area Applicant PLPA-2023-00033 General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment - Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and a Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Maps, and Development Agreement 10/1612023 General Commercial/ Campus Office (GC/CO), Open Space (OS), Parks/Public Recreation (PIPR), PubliclSemi-Public (PISP), and Medium High Density Residential (MH) Map r Sports Park Parking Lot ORT GE Sunrise Nature Park Guitar Center 988 BaoBao 0 EDCC Cottonwood Creek_ School 2 Creek K-8 School Cottonwood— ccrn k Park 7arget9 aJ-s Restaurant & Srewttoune Go:;gle Keynoardatrortwta +hapdais 020x4Goalie renns Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Address Ordinance No. 32-05 and Ordinance N0. 13-08 Croak Road 192 acres Documents Wool See. GH PacVest, Inc 2800 Post Oak Blvd. Ste 5115, Houston TX 77056 832-397-6506 Final Local Transportation Analysis April 3, 2024 Final Draft Initial Study Addendum, April 8. 2024 Community Meeting Presentation Dublin Fallon 580 March 27 & 26 and April 3, 2024 1118 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6.! Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-1023-00033) The Applicant, GH PacVest LLC, is requesting an approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment, Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and a Development Agreement for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. The proposed project would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use designation and convert 42.6 acres designated Open Space to Parks/Public-Recreation, increase the allowed commercial/office uses up to 3,299,670 square feet, establish development standards for the residential use, and subdivide the entire project site into 11 parcels. The April 23, 2024 Dublin Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 2 Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the project and an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. The Applicant is requesting to continue this item to have additional time to consider terms of the Development Agreement. The Public Hearing will be re -noticed once the item is ready for Planning Commission consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date uncertain. Staff Report Planning Commissioners Commission Members Position Term Expiration Date Catheryn Grier Janine Thalblum Renato Tyler Stephen Wright Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Chairperson December 2026 December 2026 December 2024 December 2024 Matthew Aini Vice Chairperson December 2024 Wahida Rashid Alternate Commissioner December 2024 Nicholas Dchoa I Alternate Commissioner December 2024 On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:04 PM Sachin Bhandari <> wrote: This Traffic Study for the 580 Development is completely unrealistic. At the meeting we specifically discussed the impacts of the project - specifically Parcel 7 - to Twain Harte / Pino Grande / Panorama Way. Because Central Parkway ends, people in our community can make a right turn on Twain Harte, and make an easy U turn on central parkway with a traffic flow of LOS A. 1119 t @riril -. Jordan Ranch Square { This report (attached) suggests that traffic impact would be minimal. This is complete garbage, and is obvious for anyone living here. Line 15) Near Term + Project would bring Pino Grande to LOS C at best. This traffic study has not considered the specific impact of the Croak Road construction on Central Parkway and assumes that cars can still make U-turns on Central. In a situation where cars could not make U-turns on Central, our community alone would bring Pino Grande & Central down to LOS B, and that is because we would all be in a long line around the park waiting to make a left turn. Traffic specifically around the park would be extremely high during rush hour. A 2nd community - Parcel 7 - would bring us to a C or D. That is why our HOA - representing ALL of the —100 homes adjacent to parcel 7 - would advise the planning commision to vote NO on the current plans as they stand. This study has failed to consider the specific impact of traffic to the feeder roads into both of the local communities around the park. 1120 Table &: Near -Term Operations AM Peak Hour with and without the Project - Intersection Near WC -Term 441 Delay LQS Near WC - -Term AN Delay-,.LOS PP 1 Hacienda Drive& Dublin Boulevard 0.39 41.8 ❑ 0.39 41.9 D 2 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway 0.59 28.3 C 0.59 28.4 C 3 Taasajare Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.50 39.5 D 0.50 40.0 ❑ 4 Taslajara Road & I.580 WB Ramps 0.63 13.4 B 0.63 13.4 B ., Santa Rita Rd & I-580 E8 Ramps/Pimlico Dr 0.75 32.5 C 0.75 32.5 C 6 Tas5ajara Road S Fallon Road 0.67 22.8 C 0.67 22.8 C 7 Fallon Road & Positano Parkway 0.86 31.3 C 0.86 31.7 C a Felldn Road & Central. Parkway 0.57 32.1 C 0.61 34.1 C 9 Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 0.55 23.2 C 0.57 23.4 C 10 Felton Road & Fallon Gateway 0.53 13.1 B 0.54 13.5 B 11 Fallon Road &l.580WBRamps 0.75 8.7 A 0.78 9.0 A 12 ElCharro Road & I.580 ER Ramps 0.43 6.8 A 0.44 6.8 A 13 ElCharrd Road & lack London Boulevard 0.42 13.8 6 0.42 13.8 B 14 Central Parkway& Sunset View Drive 0.76 31.6 C 0.86 42.5 D 15 Central Parkway & Panorama ❑riveIP&IO Grande Road 0.36 11-0 B 0.47 13.3 B 16 Airway Boulevard & N. Canyons Parkway 0.44 17.8 8 0.44 17.9 B 17 Airway Boulevard & I.580 WB Ramps 0.25 13.5 8 0.25 13.4 B The planning commission should require the developer to connect the community to Dublin Blvd which would be much better for everyone. Us & the future homebuyers of Parcel 7. Parcel 7 could still enjoy the park with walking paths. Jordan Ranch Park should be a pedestrian friendly place -- not a place where 100 homes (ours) + 128 future homes, with a combined -400+ cars are moving in very close proximity to *thousands* of children around a park and school. On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:21 PM Crystal De Castro <Crystal.DeCastro@dublin.ca.gov> wrote: Hi Sachin, The reports are available online on the City's development activity page. The Planning Commission agenda, including an email sent out to all interested parties, provided that the Applicant requested the item be continued. This means the project was not discussed at the April 23, 2024 Planning Commission meeting and new notices will be mailed out once the item is ready for Planning Commission consideration. For clarification, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council takes action on this item. 1121 II1St DUBLIN THE NEW AhE RIN BACKYARD Crystal De Castro Senior Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 I (925) 833-6628 FAX crystal.decastro@dublin.ca.gov I www.dublin.ca.gov Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champion a culture of diversity and inclusion. From: Sachin Bhandari > Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 10:18 AM To: Cathy Wells <Cathy.WellsPdublin.ca.gov>; Crystal De Castro <Crystal.DeCastro@dublin.ca.gov> Cc: Andrea Blanchard >; roslynn hill >; Shaenine Turner >; Henry Samra >; rakesh surana >; Subject: Re: Public Hearing Notice - Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033) Hi, How was this vote by the planning commission even scheduled without the traffic report being publicly released? Also, it seems like this directly contradicts claims in the last meeting that the City had no idea when this vote for Stage 1 / 2 would take place. Please immediately release the traffic report even if it is in draft form with any mitigations discussed or planned between the City of Dublin and the landowner / developer. 1122 Please also release the environmental study supporting this project. Thanks, Sachin On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 1:45 PM Cathy Wells <Cathy.Wells@dublin.ca.gov> wrote: City of Dublin NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Tuesday, April 23, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin Project Name: Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033) Project Description: The Applicant, GH PacVest, proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, Planned Development Zoning with a Stage 1 Development Plan, Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Maps, and a Development Agreement for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. The proposed project would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public uses and convert 42.6 acres designated Open Space to Parks/Public-Recreation, increase the commercial/office uses to 3,299,670 square feet, establish development standards for the residential uses, and subdivide the entire project site into 11 parcels. No development is proposed at this time. The Planning Commission will consider the Dublin Fallon 580 Project and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the project and an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports. Project Location: Vacant Parcel east of Fallon Road and north of 1-580, Address; APNs 905-0001- 006-03, 985-0027-002, 985-0027-005, and 985-0027-004 1123 You are invited to attend this meeting in -person or electronically and provide feedback regarding this project. If you wish to participate electronically and provide comments you may do so by filling out an online speaker slip and calling in using a computer/smart phone or telephone via a link or telephone number that will be provided following submission of a speaker slip. Online speaker slips will be available at https://dublin.ca.gov/83/Planning-Commission beginning at 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing. If you challenge the described action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division at or prior to this public hearing. To make a request for disability -related modification or accommodation, please contact the Planning Division Senior Office Assistant at (925) 833-6610 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Upon receiving a request, the City will swiftly resolve requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and resolve any doubt in favor of accessibility. Additional Resources: The Staff Report for this item will be available on the City's website on the Friday prior to this hearing: https://dublin.ca.gov/83/Planning-Commission. Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner (925) 833-6610 crystal.decastro@dublin.ca.gov Thank you, Cathy Wells Senior Office Assistant — Community Development Department 1124 274 DUBLIN TF- E NE,W AMERiCAN BACKYA4D City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 1 (925) 833-6628 FAX cathy.wells@dublin.ca.gov 1 www.dublin.ca.gov Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champion a culture of diversity and inclusion. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1125 12/21/2023 City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Opposition to the Proposed New Housing Development Adjacent to Kingswood Community — File Number: PLPA-2023-00033 Dear Members of the City of Dublin Planning Commission, We, the Kingswood Community Homeowners' Association, would like to formally express our opposition to the proposed new housing development adjacent to our community (Parcel 2, 4, 5 and 7 in File number: PLPA-2023-00033). After careful consideration and consultation, we have identified several key concerns that we believe warrant your attention as follows: Impact on Community Traffic Flow: The Kingswood Community was not designed to accommodate a significant surge in vehicular traffic. We are concerned that the proposed housing development would lead to congestion on our already -limited roadways, resulting in longer commutes and increased safety risks for our residents and pedestrian traffic from the school. Entry to and from the development would also make the park unsafe. Impact on Cottonwood Creek School Traffic: The proximity of Cottonwood Creek School to the proposed development poses additional challenges. Traffic around the school is already congested during peak drop-off and pick-up times. The additional vehicles from the new development could exacerbate these issues, jeopardizing the safety of students and increasing the burden on parents and school staff. Potential Decrease in Property Values: An abrupt increase in the housing supply in our area, including the already new development under construction at the end of Central Parkway may adversely affect property values. This is a concerning prospect for homeowners in the Kingswood Community and should be carefully evaluated before moving forward with another development. The overlook from the school and the park are why some residents purchased homes in our neighborhood. Some residents paid 1126 additional housing costs to enjoy this view. Any development that carves up the hills would really alter this. To substantiate these concerns, we propose that an independent traffic impact study and property value assessment be conducted. These data -driven evaluations would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the long-term ramifications of the proposed development, both for our community and the surrounding areas. We understand the need for housing and community growth, but we firmly believe that it should not come at the expense of existing residents' quality of life or financial well being. We respectfully request that the Homeowners' Association's concerns be considered seriously in any forthcoming deliberations related to this proposed development. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We are open to further discussion. Regards, Kingswood Homeowners Association Board 1127 Attachment 12 RESOLUTION NO. 24-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE, APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NOS. 8663, 8666, AND 8667 AND ADOPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE DUBLIN FALLON 580 PROJECT (PLPA-2023-00033) (APNS 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-002, 985-0027-005, AND 985-0027-004) WHEREAS, the Property Owner, GH PacVest LLC, is requesting approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, an amendment to the existing Planned Development (PD) Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan, approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential use, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667, and a Development Agreement for the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. WHEREAS, the proposed project would eliminate the Public/Semi-Public land use designation and convert 42.6 acres designated Open Space to Parks/Public-Recreation, establish development standards for the future development of 238 residential units and approximately 3,299,670 square feet of commercial/campus office use. The 192-acre site would be subdivided into 11 parcels. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the "Dublin Fallon 580 Project" or the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the 192-acre site is located east of Fallon Road, north of 1-580, and along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension; and WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations are Medium High Density, General Commercial/Campus Office, Parks/Public Recreation, Open Space, and Public Semi Public; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within Planned Development zoning district Ordinance No. 32-05; and WHEREAS, amendments to Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05 for Fallon Village are necessary for consistency with the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps will allow for the orderly division of the Dublin Fallon 580 Project Property into 11 parcels consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (1993); 2) the Reso. No. 24-05, Item 6.1, Adopted 06/11/2024 Page 1 of 3 1128 East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP EIRs;" and WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum for the Project ("Addendum"), incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 11, 2024, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Development Agreement and Addendum; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum, the EDSP EIRs, all above -referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project, and the Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, on the basis of substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the EDSP EIRs, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the Planning Commission, that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed and that an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project will not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the previous CEQA documents and no further environmental review under CEQA is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution attached as Exhibit A adopting the Addendum to the EDSP EIRs and General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, based on the findings, as set forth in Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance attached as Exhibit B adopting an amendment to the Zoning Map, an amendment to an existing Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan, based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit B. Reso. No. 24-05, Item 6.1, Adopted 06/11/2024 Page 2 of 3 1129 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council remove the Contemporary residential architectural style from the Stage 2 Development Plan Architectural Design Guidelines, based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution, attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, approving Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 8663, 8666, and 8667 based on the findings and conditions of approval, as set forth in Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance attached as Exhibit D approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and GH PacVest LLC, based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit D. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Aini, Grier, Rashid, Tyler, Wright NOES: ABSENT: Thalblum ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DocuSigned by: r 8AAE4AA4B24E47C... Planning Commission Chair ,-DocuSigned by: WA. ,1 24623EFOD46C4C6... Assistant community Development Director Reso. No. 24-05, Item 6.1, Adopted 06/11/2024 Page 3 of 3 1130 Attachment 13 MEMORANDUM OF RESPONSE TO CEQA ADDENDUM AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMENTS DATE: June 26, 2024 PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Neda Zayer, Assistant Community Development Director, City of Dublin Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation & Operations Manager, City of Dublin Shanna Guiler, AICP Associate/Environmental Planner, LSA Associates Theresa Wallace, AICP Principal/Environmental Planner, LSA Associates Damian Stefanakis, T.E., Kittleson & Associates Dublin 580 Fallon Project CEQA Addendum and Transportation Impact Analysis - Response to Comments This memorandum responds to public comments on the Dublin 580 Project. The City received two comment letters addressed to the Planning Commission for the June 11, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. One letter was on behalf of the Kingswood Owners Association (KOA) and another letter was from a KOA Board Member. An Initial Study, was prepared to support the City's finding that the proposed project qualifies for an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR),1 the Supplemental EIR (2002 SEIR)2 to the Eastern Dublin EIR prepared for the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation project, and the Supplemental EIR for the Fallon Village Project (Fallon Village SEIR),3 collectively referred to as the "EDSP EIRs" per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an addendum need not be circulated for public review. Commission This memorandum focuses on the transportation -related comments from both letters as well as comments on the Addendum. Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in the Initial Study or the Transportation Impact Analysis (i.e., are outside the scope of this document) or that do not include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and/or expert opinion supported by facts are not given specific responses. RESPONSES TO LETTER FROM HOLDER LAW GROUP DATED JUNE 4, 2024 A. Absent Adequate Environmental Review, the Project's Residential Density and Commercial Intensity Should Not be Increased Over the Character and Amount of Development Described and Analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The comment, which begins on page 2 of the comment letter, asserts that the proposed project improperly increases the density of the proposed residential and commercial development and that Dublin, City of. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. December. 2 Dublin, City of. 2002. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114, East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. March. 3 Dublin, City of. 2005. Fallon Village Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2005062010. November. Page 1 of 9 1131 these substantial increases in residential density and total commercial use area have the potential to cause increased traffic and may also increase traffic safety risks. The commenter further suggests that the City lacks substantial evidence to support the CEQA Addendum and that additional supplemental review, specifically a stand-alone EIR, is required. This assertion is based on the commenter's opinion that the proposed project involves more than "minor" changes to existing Specific Plan designations and that evaluation of several technical topics is inadequate. Responses to the specific technical comments provided in this letter are provided below. As stated on page 7 and shown in Table C of the Initial Study, the proposed project would consist of the development of 238 residential townhome units. The density and intensity of the proposed residential development is consistent with the General Plan Medium High (MH) Density Residential land use designation and consistent with the density range of 14.1 — 25.0 dwelling units per acre specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not represent an increase in residential density. As stated on page 9 of the Initial Study, as shown in Table B, the project would include a 0.6 floor area ratio (FAR) for the GC/CO portion of the project site, which is consistent with the FAR allowed in the Fallon Village PD-1 and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not represent an increase in commercial density. However, the 0.6 FAR does represent an increase from the 0.28 FAR assumed under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The PD-GC/CO zoning allows for a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office use, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Based on the 0.6 FAR, a potential development project could build up to 3,299,670 square feet of general commercial/campus office development compared to the 1,522,161 square feet of development anticipated in the EDSP and evaluated in the EDSP EIRs. Although a higher FAR was analyzed, the regulations propose a mix of limited light manufacturing, hotel, retail, and office uses for the GC/CO parcels that is compatible with the surrounding area. This mix of uses constitutes the proposed project, as analyzed in the Initial Study. As demonstrated in the environmental analyses included in the Initial Study, the GC/CO development falls within the anticipated development intensity (e.g., traffic, air emissions) anticipated in the EDSP EIRs and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant effect on the environment than was already identified in the EDSP EIRs. The project site has been the subject of three prior EIRs, which have assessed the environmental impacts of proposed development on the site and subsequent major changes to such development density. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the CEQA standards for supplemental review were triggered by the proposed project including whether the proposed project could have a new or substantially more severe significant effect on the environment than was already identified in the EDSP EIRs. Since an EIR had already been prepared, this determination is subject to the substantial evidence test, not the fair argument test. Based on the evaluation of all environmental issue topics in the Initial Study, the City determined that, in light of the whole record and based on substantial evidence, the proposed project was considered within the scope of the evaluation within the EDSP EIRs, no new impacts were identified, no new mitigation measures are required and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed project would not require further review under CEQA. In addition, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that is based on the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as well as any modifications required for the proposed project. The MMRP identifies each Page 2 of 9 1132 required mitigation measure, the schedule or timing for implementation, and the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring the required action. The MMRP is designed to ensure implementation of the relevant mitigation measures from the EDSP EIRs, identified in the Initial Study and would be required as part of the project approval. The project applicant would be required to implement the MMRP as a condition of project approval. It should be noted that the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project does not in and of itself require the preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the City that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence must consist of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Specific points raised by the commenter that relate to the adequacy of the Initial Study are responded to below. Based on a review of all of the comments received, the City has determined that, consistent with the conclusions in the CEQA Addendum and accompanying Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and required regulatory measures, the standards for preparation of a subsequent EIR are triggered. B. Because the Project Will Potentially Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Significant Environmental Impacts, an EIR is Required; the Proposed Addendum is Improper. The comment asserts that the proposed project improperly relied on outdated and incomplete analyses as presented in the EDSP EIRs and failed to accurately assess the following impacts: impacts to public open space and scenic vistas; cumulative traffic impacts; traffic safety hazards created by substantially increasing the number of residences dependent upon small streets for exclusive ingress and egress routes; and unanalyzed climate change impacts. Responses to these specific comments are provided below. 1. The Project, as Designed, Has the Potential to Cause Significant but Unmitigated Aesthetic Impacts The comment asserts that the proposed development on Parcel 7 would completely obstruct scenic views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantage points and that the proposed project is inconsistent with the EDSP requirement to "site buildings on the downslope side of streets, where feasible, so the main mass of the building is below street level, allowing views over roofs from the street." Further, the comment asserts that the City assumes, without substantiation, that the mitigation measures referenced in the Initial Study will be effectively implemented. The comment also states that the Initial Study inadequately addresses the potential visual impacts resulting from the additional commercial square footage proposed. As described in the Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to standardized tract development, obscuring distinctive natural features, alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses, alteration of Dublin's visual identity as a freestanding city, scenic vistas, and scenic routes. All of these impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. In compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City has prepared and adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards which contains five overall scenic corridor implementing policies, specific scenic corridor zone policies, and development standards for 6 zones and implementation procedures that promote the preservation of scenic vistas from the three transportation corridors — Tassajara Road, Interstate 580 (1-580) and Fallon Road. Views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantages are not identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards or the EDSP El Rs as significant vistas or designated scenic routes. As stated in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, "while the applicant Page 3 of 9 1133 should generally comply with these standards, the City may allow some flexibility with meeting these standards only if the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, compliance with the overall intent of the policies and standards." With regard to the commenter's assertion that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policy to "site buildings on the downslope side of streets, where feasible, so the main mass of the building is below street level, allowing views over roofs from the street," as stated, this policy is to be implemented, "where feasible." The project applicant has determined that due to the site topography, it is infeasible to place the residential buildings downslope due to inadequate access and connectivity between the proposed project and the adjacent neighborhood to the north. The proposed project would grade the site to provide a level building pad for the proposed residential development at the same elevation as the adjacent neighborhood. The general type and massing of buildings associated with the proposed project would not be significantly different than those analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Due to the project's location in the southern portion of the Fallon Village planning area, proposed buildings would not obstruct views of the main scenic ridgeline, as designated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which borders the larger Eastern Dublin planning area to the north and east. As part of the proposed project, the areas designated for Visually Sensitive Ridgelands — Restricted Development would be preserved as Natural Community Park, consistent with the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Further, the proposed residential development on Parcel 7 has been designed with breaks between the buildings to preserve some view locations from the north looking south over the ridge where the topography slopes down. In accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0 development will be permitted in the foreground hills and ridgelands, if a backdrop of natural ridgelines remains visible when viewed from designated scenic routes and appropriate measures are taken to minimize visual impacts. These measures are specified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards and the other mitigation measures outlined in the EDSP El Rs and enforced through the City's site -specific design review process. As part of the Stage 2 Development Plan, the project applicant has provided architectural and landscape guidelines for the residential portion of the proposed project, based on the Design Guidelines and Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan in the Stage 1 Development Plan and aimed at promoting well designed and attractive development. The architectural and landscape guidelines provide the framework for future Site Development Review Permits, which will consider the project's consistency with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics. The project applicant will be required to submit similar guidelines and undergo site -specific design review for future development of the GC/CO parcels, in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project. As described above, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that is based on the mitigation measures identified in the 2022 SEIR, and identifies which measures are applicable to the proposed project. The MMRP identifies each required mitigation measure, the schedule or timing for implementation, and the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring the required action. The MMRP is designed to ensure implementation of the applicable mitigation measures and would be required as part of the project approval. The project applicant would be required to implement the MMRP as a condition of project approval, including those relevant mitigation measures related to visual resources. Page 4 of 9 1134 Therefore, as stated in the Initial Study, with adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. 2. The Project Will Exacerbate Neighborhood Traffic Congestion. The comment asserts that the existing traffic and safety problems on the roads surrounding Jordan Ranch Square would be exacerbated by the proposed development within Parcel 7, that the analysis does not consider the increase in local traffic associated with recent and pending neighborhood development projects, and that the impact analysis relies on the mix of uses for the GC/CO parcels as proposed (e.g., 2,888,400 square feet of advanced manufacturing, a 314-room hotel, 100,000 square feet of retail and 100,000 square feet of office). In accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study checklist evaluates whether the proposed project is within the scope of the project covered by the EDSP EIRs, by assessing whether the proposed project would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. An analysis was prepared comparing the trip generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 property studied as part of the Fallon Village SEIR and the estimated trip generation for the same property based on the proposed project. As described on page 162 of the Initial Study and in the Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum (Appendix I in the Initial Study), the proposed project would generate 22,932 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the Fallon Village SEIR, despite the increase in FAR for the GC/CO parcels. Therefore, the proposed project is within the scope of the EDSP EIRs and no new transportation impacts that were not previously disclosed would be anticipated based on daily trip generation for the proposed project. As required by the City of Dublin Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a local transportation analysis (LTA) was prepared to evaluate potential impacts on the circulation network focusing primarily on local access and circulation in proximity to a project site. The LTA includes an analysis of existing, near -term, and near -term plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. Per the TIA Guidelines, this analysis is required for conditions of approval and is outside the CEQA review process. The LTA prepared by Kittelson & Associates addressed all potential traffic impacts on the circulation network and proposed improvements. The LTA has concluded that the project will not greatly exacerbate neighborhood traffic congestion based on the levels of service and delay at the two study intersections identified by the commenter. 3. The Project Will Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Traffic Safety Impacts. The comment asserts that the Initial Study inadequately addressed the potential for the proposed project to create safety hazards associated with increased residential development near an elementary school that is already experiencing high levels of peak hour traffic. As described above and in the Initial Study, the proposed project would include development of 238 residential units, consistent with the General Plan Medium High (MH) Density Residential land use designation and consistent with the density range of 14.1— 25.0 dwelling units per acre specified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project does not represent an increase in residential density. Page 5 of 9 1135 Primary access into the residential neighborhoods would be via Pandora Way within the Jordan Ranch development and an east/west private street off of Croak Road. The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations as well as internal roadways within the project site would be required to be in compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code would ensure that roadways would be designed appropriately; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. As described above, an analysis was prepared comparing the trip generation for the Dublin Fallon 580 property studied as part of the Fallon Village SEIR and the estimated trip generation for the same property based on the proposed project. As described on page 162 of the Initial Study and in the Dublin Fallon 580 Trip Generation Comparison Technical Memorandum (Appendix I in the Initial Study), the proposed project would generate 22,932 fewer daily vehicle trips compared to the assumptions from the Fallon Village SEIR, despite the increase in FAR for the GC/CO parcels. Therefore, the level of vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be within the scope of the project covered by the EDSP EIRs and would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The commenter asserts that there is already heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic on neighborhood streets due to school drop off and pick up at Cottonwood Creek Elementary School. The City acknowledges this condition during school pick up and drop off; however, the proposed project would not significantly exacerbate this existing condition. As required by the City of Dublin Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a local transportation analysis (LTA) was prepared to evaluate potential impacts on the circulation network focusing primarily on local access and circulation in proximity to a project site. The LTA includes an analysis of existing, near -term, and near -term plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. In addition, as discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on June 11, 2024, alternative routes would be provided via Croak Road to alleviate vehicle traffic through the adjacent residential neighborhood. Pedestrian walkways and bike paths would connect the proposed project to the adjacent Jordan Ranch project and a landscaped green corridor with an 8-foot multi -use walkway is proposed along the northwest edge of Parcel 7, providing pedestrian and bicycle routes to/from the proposed project. Currently, the intersection of Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA) is an unsignalized all -way stop. The LOS & delay levels did not trigger a need to change the control type and signalize this location under any of the analyzed scenarios. Based on the near term plus project and cumulative plus project volumes expected at this location, the signal warrant analysis did not indicate a signal is warranted at this location. However, as traffic patterns change and more development is added, the City will periodically conduct new counts and reassess the control and safety at this location. 4. The 1/S Improperly Omits Analysis of the Project's Potential Contribution to Climate Change Impacts. The comment asserts that the City should analyze the proposed project's consistency with the City's adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 and otherwise meaningfully assess the proposed project's climate change impacts. If the project is not consistent with CAP 2030, then subsequent analysis of the project's contribution to climate change impacts is required. As described on page 97 of the Initial Study, because the EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gasses and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial Page 6 of 9 1136 importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EDSP EIRs were certified as complete" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)). Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the EDSP 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 gas emissions 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. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gasses on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. 5. The Project's Contributions to Cumulative Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed. The comment asserts that the Initial Study failed to accurately analyze the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The comment further states that the City has approved approximately 46 General Plan Amendments (GPAs), which allow for increased density/intensity than that considered in the EDSP EIR or subsequent EIRs. Therefore, the City should evaluate the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts in the context of other development projects within the EDSP area that are more intensive than anticipated in the EDSP EIRs. As described above, the Initial Study checklist evaluates whether the proposed project is within the scope of the project covered by the EDSP EIRs, by assessing whether the proposed project would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As demonstrated by the analysis provided in the Initial Study, the proposed project's impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. Potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less -than -significant level with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs include the topics of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise. These impacts would primarily be related to construction -period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics. For the topics of agricultural and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire, the project would have no impacts or less -than -significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less -than -significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs. Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development. Other projects within the EDSP area have undergone or will undergo a similar level of environmental review and will be required to comply with existing regulation Page 7 of 9 1137 requirements and the mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, as concluded in the Initial Study, implementation of the proposed project, with compliance with regulatory requirements and required mitigation measures, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. C. Project Design Changes Would Avoid or Minimize Unanalyzed Potentially Significant Impacts. This comment provides suggested design changes to, in the opinion of the commenter, avoid or minimize the potentially significant impacts described herein. This comment is noted. As part of the City's approval process, the City Council will consider the suggestions provided by the commenter. No further response is required. D. KOA Requests Notice Concerning Further Environmental Review and Public Hearings Concerning the Project. This comment requests the City to provide the commenter with all CEQA documentation completed for the proposed project and all public meetings or hearings concerning the proposed project. This comment does not relate to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document; therefore, no response is required. RESPONSES TO LETTER FROM SACHIN BHANDARI The comment letter from Sachin Bhandari asserts that the City of Dublin has released an Initial Study and LTA that inadequately avoid/mitigate the impacts of the Dublin Fallon 580 Project, particularly at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway. The LTA prepared for the project evaluated the Level of Service (LOS) conditions at the intersections surrounding the project site and analyzed existing, near -term, near -term plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. The analysis conducted did not result in any of the intersections surrounding the project site, including at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway, operating below a LOS C. The majority of the intersections remain at LOS B. The City of Dublin acceptable LOS threshold is D or better. The model used does not predict pedestrian traffic increases in the future cumulative condition of the area, but additional pedestrians are not expected to appreciably change the LOS/delay from B to exceed the City standard of LOS D. As discussed at the Planning Commission hearing on June 11, 2024, alternative routes would be provided to Fallon Road even before Dublin Boulevard Extension is constructed, which could further alleviate traffic conditions at Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA) during the near term plus project scenario. A new connection from Croak Road to the future planned Dublin Boulevard Extension will be constructed and will further disperse both Dublin East Ranch and full buildout of GH PacVest traffic to alternative routes, thus contributing to the same or improved LOS at Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA). Also, as mentioned above, pedestrian walkways and bike paths would connect the proposed project to the adjacent Jordan Ranch project and a landscaped green corridor with an 8-foot multi -use Page 8 of 9 1138 walkway is proposed along the northwest edge of Parcel 7, providing pedestrian and bicycle routes to/from the proposed project. Responses to specific comments are provided below: The extension of Central Parkway due to the Croak Rd Development will in turn make doing a U- turn where Central ends impractical with ongoing traffic coming the other way. The Camino Loop side traffic from Kingswood would instead route around Jordan Ranch Square Park. Twain Harte does not allow for left turns onto Central. Response: Traffic will have the option to make a U-turn at the All -Way Stop control intersection at Central/Croak (unless the City decides to restrict this movement) or turn right onto Croak Road that connects to Fallon Road on the south. Residents will also be able to turn left onto Central Parkway at Pino Grande Road. This assessment also assumes no increased vehicular flow west bound on Central Parkway at the intersection in question, despite 500+ residential units coming online whose major point of access is Central Parkway to Fallon Rd / 580 is Central Parkway. Implausibly, none of these people would use Central Parkway to access their homes or Cottonwood Creek. Response: Central Pkwy would not be the only route that is available under near -term conditions. The model assumes a portion of the 500+ residential units would use Central Parkway in the near -term as expected. However, traffic from the East Ranch development would be able to use alternate routes such as Croak Road to Fallon Road and the northern portion of the development would also use Positano Parkway to Fallon. The other major issue that the traffic report doesn't address is pedestrian traffic physically around the Jordan Ranch Park. Response: The development of the Jordan Ranch Park will be installing sidewalks along the frontages of Twain Harte Road and Pino Grande Road. This will improve pedestrian circulation in the area. Students and parents walking to Cottonwood Creek elementary school from the proposed Project would not need to cross Pino Grande Road. They would be able to use the existing sidewalks on the west side of Pino Grande Road and south side of Central Parkway to access the school. The letter also referenced a preference for Parcel 7 connecting directly with Dubin Boulevard extension or Croak Road. Response: This was considered by the applicant but was infeasible due to the constraints of the hill/canyon topography around Parcel 7. In addition, the comment letter asserts that the proposed project would obstruct scenic views from Jordan Ranch Park. Please see response in Section B.1. above related to visual impacts associated with the proposed project. The comment letter also raises issues related to the City's noticing and review process. This comment is noted but does not relate to the adequacy or content of the CEQA document. No further response is required. Page 9 of 9 1139 Attachment 14 Buchalter June 20, 2024 Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023-00033) EIR Addendum Dear Crystal: 425 Market Street Suite 2900 San Francisco, CA 94105 415.227.0900 Phone 415.227.0770 Fax 415.227.3508 Direct aguerra@buchalter.com As you know, Buchalter, a Professional Corporation, represents GH PacVest, Inc. ("GHPV") with respect to the land use approvals for its proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (the "Project"). The Project is located in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin at Fallon Road and Interstate 580 on the former Anderson and Chen properties within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. First, I wanted to extend my appreciation on behalf of our client for the thorough review the City conducted of the Project applications over the past several years. Secondly, I wanted to take this opportunity to generally address the comments from Mr. Holder that he submitted to the Dublin Planning Commission on June 4, 2024 on behalf of the Kingswood Owners Association ("KOA"). If I understand the gist of Mr. Holder's June 4, 2024 comments that he submitted on behalf of his client, he is effectively directing the City to not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), and just prepare another environmental impact report ("EIR") even though the minor changes in the Project compared to the prior discretionary approvals would not result in new significant impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts previously evaluated in the City's prior 3 EIRs that addressed this Project. That is exactly what CEQA says not to do. As the Planning Commission noted at its June 11, 2024 hearing, and as the City's Addendum stated, the City of Dublin ("City") prepared and certified three environmental impact reports ("EIRs") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") since 1993. buchalter.com Los Angeles Denver Napa Valley Nashville Orange County Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Diego San Francisco Scottsdale Seattle BN 83214200v2 1140 Buchalter Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner June 20, 2024 Page 2 Staff prepared a very thorough presentation for the Planning Commission at its June 11, 2024 Planning Commission hearing. Staff's presentation was very comprehensive in explaining the history of the Project, walking through all of the prior environmental review that the City has conducted for this area since the early 1990s, and addressing comments from the public about purported traffic impacts even though the impacts were previously addressed other City EIRs. The EIRs included the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR, the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR, and the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (collectively, the "East Dublin Specific Plan EIRs" or the "EDSP EIRs"). Because the prior EIRs still applied to the Project, the City prepared an Addendum to document whether or not the proposed Project would require subsequent environmental review. An addendum is appropriate when a project has some changes but the changes would not result in a new significant impact or in a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts previously evaluated in the EIR. CEQA requires a lead agency prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if only some changes or additions are necessary, but no conditions exist which would require a subsequent EIR. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21166; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (the "CEQA Guidelines"), § 15164(a).) A lead agency must prepare a subsequent EIR only after it "determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record," that either: (1) the project proposes substantial changes "which will require major revisions of the previous EIR" due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified shows that the project will have a significant effect not discussed in the previous EIR, previously examined significant effects will be substantially more severe, or mitigation measures are available which would reduce one or more significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a).) Thus, absent any of the above enumerated conditions, CEQA bars a lead agency' from preparing a subsequent EIR. Instead, the lead agency must prepare an addendum to the previously certified EIR. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21166; CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(a).) That is what ' Section 15162(a) uses the language "no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines" any of the above enumerated events have occurred. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a) (emphasis added).) BN 83214200v2 1141 Buchalter Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner June 20, 2024 Page 3 the City did here just as it has done for other projects in the EDSP area. There is no substantial evidence requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR. As explained above, in order to require preparation of a subsequent EIR, CEQA Guidelines 15162 requires that there be substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project proposes substantial changes to the prior approved Project and/or its circumstances, or that new information has arisen indicating that the project would cause new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the impacts previously identified in the prior EIRs. Substantial evidence is defined as "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a).) "Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion" is expressly excluded from substantial evidence. (Id.) Substantial evidence includes "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." (Id., § 15384(b).) KOA makes several unsubstantiated or erroneous claims that the Project should be evaluated in its own new EIR — the fourth EIR- for this area, because according to the commenter: (1) the Project allegedly exceeds the intensity of development evaluated in the prior EIRs; and (2) the EIR Addendum relies on outdated analyses presented in the prior EIRs. The commenter seems focused on a claim that the City failed to assess alleged impacts to open space and scenic vistas, traffic impacts, and climate change impacts. For the reasons detailed below, KOA's unsubstantiated claims do not warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR. KOA's letter raise these issues without any evidence and KOA failed to meet its burden of proof required under CEQA. The Project intensity is consistent with the density previously evaluated in the EIRs. In its letter, KOA erroneously claims that the Project intensity exceeds the intensity that the City reviewed in the prior EIR. KOA only claims that the Project intensity exceeds that which was previously proposed. However, this ignores the fact that the prior EIRs evaluated a range in density that could develop within the EDSP. First, KOA claims that the Project increases commercial development by increasing the overall floor area ratio ("FAR") for that portion of development. Overall, the Project proposes 3,299,670 square feet of commercial uses across 126.25 acres at a density of 0.6 FAR. (EIR Addendum, p. 7.) This is consistent with the 0.8 FAR general commercial density evaluated in the Fallon Village EIR. (Fallon Village Initial Study, p. 23.) On 126.25 acres, a commercial development at the maximum 0.8 FAR would provide 4,404,787 square feet of commercial space. Thus, the approximately 3.3 million square feet of commercial uses is within the density range that the City evaluated in the EDSP EIRs and there are no new impacts. BN 83214200v2 1142 Buchalter Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner June 20, 2024 Page 4 KOA additionally wrongly claims that the Project proposes an increase in residential density. The Project proposes 238 medium -high density residential units at a density of 17.4 units per acre. (EIR Addendum, p. 7.) However, this is the same as the density of the previously approved version of the project, which proposed 238 units. Regardless, the prior EIRs evaluated a residential density of up to 25 units per acre, which would yield a maximum 342 units. Again, the Project is within the density evaluated in prior environmental documents and there are no new significant or substantially greater impacts warranting further CEQA review. The Project proposes residential and commercial densities within the ranges evaluated in the prior EIRs. KOA does not recognize in its letter that the Project is within the scope of the General Plan and zoning density ranges, but instead focuses on the differences between this project and the prior iteration of the Project, both of which were consistent with the scope of environmental review that the City previously conducted. Because the Project fits within the density range evaluated in the EIRs, the Project proposes no changes which would require preparation of a subsequent EIR under Section 15162. KOA does not provide any substantial evidence which would require preparation of a subsequent EIR to the contrary. The EIR Addendum adequately analyzes and mitigates for potential impacts to scenic resources. KOA makes several assertions, including that the EIR Addendum failed to adequately analyze impacts to open space and scenic vistas, traffic, and climate change. With respect to scenic vistas, KOA erroneously claims that the Project would "completely obstruct" scenic views and that proposed mitigation measures improperly "defer" analysis and mitigation. Here, however, KOA misrepresents CEQA. The EIR Addendum provides that several mitigation measures, which include subjecting the Project to design review, requirements for sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation, are sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. (EIR Addendum, p. 22.) When "a public agency has evaluated the potentially significant impacts of a project and has identified measures that will mitigate those impacts, the agency does not have to commit to any particular mitigation measure in the EIR, as long as it commits to mitigating the significant impacts of the project." (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 629.) The "details of exactly how mitigation will be achieved under the identified measures can be deferred pending completion of a future study." (Id.) "Where future action to carry a project forward is contingent on devising means to satisfy such criteria, the agency should be able to rely on its commitment as evidence that significant impacts will in fact be mitigated." (Id.) In North Coast, the Court of Appeal upheld as valid a mitigation measure requiring the preparation and implementation of a future landscaping plan as sufficient for reducing the visual BN 83214200v2 1143 Buchalter Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner June 20, 2024 Page 5 and scenic impacts of a proposed water tank. (Id. at p. 630.) The court cited to other cases which uphold mitigation measures that are imposed at the design stage. (Id. (citing Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 244; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Ca1.App.4th 1099).) Here, as in North Coast, the City did not improperly defer mitigation. The EIRs and the EIR Addendum specify exactly how future actions (e.g. approval of design review, revegetation plan, etc.) will mitigate impacts to scenic resources. Thus, the City here did not improperly defer mitigation of impacts to scenic resources. The prior EIRs adequately evaluated the Project's transportation impacts. KOA made various claims that the EIR Addendum failed to study traffic impacts caused by the commercial use increase in square footage as well as traffic safety impacts allegedly caused by the proposed residential uses. Again, as explained above, the Project is consistent with the densities evaluated in the prior EIRs. Because the proposed densities are consistent with the densities previously reviewed, the Project does not constitute a change that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, the EIR Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document pursuant to Section 15162(a). KOA misrepresents its claim that the state's new vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") standard constitutes changed conditions. The VMT standard for transportation impacts must only be applied prospectively. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3(c).) New or updated CEQA Guidelines (e.g. the new VMT standard) may only be applied to subsequent projects sent out for public review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15007(c).) Here, because the Project is the implementation of the prior approved EDSP and Stage 1 PD zoning, the EIR Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document to evaluate the implementation of the EDSP as specifically applied to the Dublin 580 Project. Thus,2 the VMT transportation standard does not apply to the Project. The City may rely on the transportation standard applicable to the prior EIRs for its evaluation of the transportation impacts resulting from the proposed Project. 2 CEQA Guidelines section 15164(c). BN 83214200v2 1144 Buchalter Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner June 20, 2024 Page 6 We appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to the City Council's deliberations concerning the Project at its upcoming City Council meeting in July. Sincerely, BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation Alicia Guerra AG:nj cc: John Bakker Hazel Weatherford Neda Zayer Wooi-See Ferris Jason Laub BN 83214200v2 1145 Attachment 15 INNOVATION TRI VALLEY leadership group • DANVILLE • DUBLIN • LIVERMORE • PLEASANTON • SAN RAMON July 10, 2024 Dublin City Council RE: Fallon 580 Project Dear Members of the Dublin City Council, On behalf of Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group (ITV), we are pleased to write a letter of support for the Fallon 580 Project, a model of vibrant placemaking in action. ITV is an interconnected cross -sector network of business and community leaders working to advance the business climate and quality of life in the Tri-Valley. Our collaboration is attracting new businesses, helping existing businesses expand, attracting workforce, and branding the Tri- Valley as a region of innovation to help to create a better world. To that end, ITV spearheaded the creation of the Tri-Valley 2040 Vision Plan to provide touchstones for our region's current and future planning efforts. We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for the Fallon 580 project and to commend the City Council for its vision and proactive approach to economic development in Eastern Dublin. It is truly exciting to see this vision coming to fruition. At its eventual completion, the Fallon 580 project holds immense promise for our community, particularly as a catalyst in fostering opportunities for Life Sciences, Biotech, Advanced Manufacturing, and other innovative businesses. These sectors represent the forefront of technology and industry, offering not only economic growth but also the potential for significant advancements in research and development. This initiative not only enhances our local economy but also positions Dublin as a hub for cutting -edge industries, attracting top talent and investment to our area. Implementation of the proposed project amends the land use designation on approximately 42.6-acres from Open Space (OS) to Parks/Public Recreation (P/PR) while accommodating residential, commercial/office, park, and open space uses. A total of much needed 238 residential units and up to 3,299,670-square feet of commercial/office uses is proposed on approximately 126.3-acres designated as General Commercial/Campus Office (GC/CO), approximately 49.8-acres of parkland is designated as P/PR, and approximately 2.3-acres of OS is designated in the General Plan and EDSP. Consistent with the PD-GC/CO zoning, these parcels 5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 201, Pleasanton, CA 94588 1 Office: 925.337.2859 1146 could accommodate a range of community and regional serving retail, service and office use, including a compatible mixture of these uses. Future development of these parcels would be consistent with the City's development standards, including minimum lot area, required setbacks, landscape buffers and a maximum height limit of 45 feet. In addition, this project fulfills a critical need of enhancing the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road while building an essential component of the highly anticipated Dublin Boulevard extension that gets us one step closer to the long-awaited vision of creating an additional arterial connection with Livermore. The Fallon 580 project aligns perfectly with the Tri-Valley's Vision 2040 Plan that was adopted by ITV by fulfilling objectives related to attracting world class talent, vibrant place -making opportunities, enhancing sustainability and green development, critical connections, and providing more housing for all. This project is also consistent with the City Council's own stated priorities of bolstering economic development in Eastern Dublin and extending Dublin Boulevard. We believe this project will not only strengthen our economic base but also create a ripple effect of positive outcomes, from job creation to increased revenues that can support essential city services and infrastructure improvements. Furthermore, the commitment to sustainable development ensures that Dublin continues to grow responsibly, maintaining our high quality of life for current and future residents alike. In closing, we urge the City Council to support the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission and Staff to maintain its steadfast support for the Fallon 580 project. By doing so, we can seize the exciting opportunities ahead and solidify Dublin's reputation as a dynamic and forward -thinking community. Thank you for your considering the perspectives of our ITV members and for our continued partnership. Sincerely, Katie Marcel CEO, Innovation Tri-Valley 311,b, Tim Sbranti Director of Strategic Initiatives Innovation Tri-Valley 5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 201, Pleasanton, CA 94588 1 Office: 925.337.2859 1147 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DAVID HAUBERT SUPERVISOR, FIRST DISTRICT July 10, 2024 Dublin City Council 100 Civic Plz Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Members of the Dublin City Council, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the Fallon 580 project. This project holds immense potential to benefit our community in multiple ways and represents a significant step forward in Dublin's development. One of the most compelling aspects of the Fallon 580 project is its role in unlocking the extension of Dublin Boulevard, providing an essential alternative transportation route to Interstate 580 and enhancing connectivity between Dublin and Livermore. This infrastructure improvement will not only ease traffic congestion but also improve accessibility for residents, businesses, and visitors alike. Additionally, I am pleased to note that the project includes dedicating land for Valley Link, a critical transportation initiative in the Tri-Valley region. This commitment underscores Dublin's proactive approach to supporting regional transportation solutions and enhancing mobility options for our growing community Furthermore, I appreciate the inclusion of a 40+ acre Nature Park as part of the project's development plan. This green space will provide valuable recreational opportunities for residents and contribute to enhancing our city's environmental sustainability. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to continue its support for the Fallon 580 project. By doing so, we can realize significant benefits for our community, from improved transportation infrastructure to expanded recreational amenities and enhanced economic opportunities. Thank you for your leadership and dedication to making Dublin a vibrant and thriving city for all residents. Sincerely, 7)'6,4 h David Haubert Alameda County Supervisor, Vice President First District 1148 ADVOCACY GROUP LLC July 10, 2024 Members of the Dublin City Council, The area east of Fallon Road was always envisioned to be a job generator for the City of Dublin, augmenting the tax base and commercial inventory for the community. The Fallon 580 project represents a significant step forward in this regard, promising to not only attract new businesses but also to contribute to the expansion of our city's tax base. The Fallon 580 project offers increased local employment opportunities. This not only benefits current residents but also aligns with the long-term growth objectives of the community. I urge the City Council to support the Fallon 580 project and continue policies that promote sustainable economic growth in Eastern Dublin Sincerely, GuyYIouston California Gold Advocacy Group 6300 Village Parkway, Suite 200 Dublin, Ca. 94568 6300 Village Parkway, Suite 200 • Dublin, CA 94568 P. 925-487-5839 • guyhouston@sbcglobal.net 1149 Dublin CHAMBER OF COMMERCE July 10, 2024 Mayor Michael McCorriston and Councilmembers City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: GH PacVest Property Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers, 6300 Village Parkway, Suite 100 Dublin, California 94568 (925) 828-6200 info@dublinchamberofcommerce.org www.dublinchamberofcommerce.org The Dublin Chamber of Commerce is writing to express its support for the Fallon 580 project and to commend the City Council for its proactive stance on economic development in Eastern Dublin. This project represents a pivotal opportunity to foster growth in our community and create substantial benefits for our residents. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce has supported the long-time vision that the area east of Fallon Road be an economic hub to attract a diverse array of businesses, ranging from small enterprises to larger corporations. This diversity not only enriches our local economy but also provides opportunities for entrepreneurship and innovation right here in Dublin. These businesses will not only contribute to our city's economic vitality but also provide much -needed high paying jobs for our residents, supporting their livelihoods and enhancing their quality of life. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce urges an affirmative vote for the Fallon 580 project. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce, a business membership organization with more than 250 members representing a cross-section of private, public, and non-profit industries sectors, employs nearly 12,000 workers. Dublin is located in the Tri Valley region of Eastern Alameda County at the crossroads of lnterstates 580 and 680. 1150 Dear City Council, Firstly, as a resident of Camino Loop, I welcome Dublin Fallon 580 project. However, I have two critical suggestions regarding Parcel #7 for consideration: • Trench Filling: I recommend that the builder carefully reconsider the depth and filling of the trench. The current trench is about 30 feet deep, and how it filled could significantly impact foundation stability, soil erosion, and overall safety during and after construction. Adjusting the fill depth to 15 feet or even lower could help mitigate these risks, ensuring the long-term integrity of both existing and new structures. • Unit Placement: it's crucial to relocate the units right adjacent to the boundary line further south, as illustrated in the picture. During the last hearing, the builder proposed constructing new properties only 25-30 feet away from existing ones, which is even less than the length of a school bus (35-40 feet). Building such a substantial 128-unit development in such proximity raises significant concerns about space, privacy, and the overall quality of life for existing residents. By addressing both the structural concerns of trench filling and the community impact of unit placement, the project can better integrate into the existing community, ensuring safety, environmental responsibility, and resident satisfaction. 4. • 1 ::.:• :., < 6 7°`K j Lj ! 4- ` • 111.24-="Tr...a-T±z. i Thank you for considering my concerns and suggestions! Flora(Yuhua) Bai< Flora.li.bai@gmail.com C: 408.599.9634> 1151 Dublin Fallon 580 Project City Council Meeting July 16, 2024 II DUBLIN CALIFORNIA 1152 Project Location • Dublin' -High School 11. 1,1 astern Dublin Specific Plan DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Project Location Existing/Proposed Project i a PROPOSED PARCEL 1 GC/CO PARCEL 7 MI -I PARCEL 2 GCS/CCU PARCEL 8 MH PARCEL 11 GC/CO PARCEL 9 G O/C❑ Residential Parcels Dublin - eoulev yr`; E PflSidrs • 238 units • 30 affordable units (12.5%) OR 40% in -lieu fee 60% constructed on -site (18 units) 4 Cottonwood Creek K-8 School Proposed Community Park Jordan Ranch —Centret Pkwy — ail �`,._ _. Q: Proposed m.i 6 Neighborhood ,I o Square - — — -- - L I I� y Ir Parcel 7 I 6.5 AC Proposed Neighborhood Park T 1156 Access Routes Near Term Alternate Access Routes Croak Rd PARCEL 2 GC/C0 14,33a*C, (II OVIC) PARCEL 1 GCIC0 Bent AC. -.PARCEL.1y1 -s RUC O 4 sue! ry.ewAc) PARCEL 6 PARR as000 (e.Iawc) PARCEL 9 GC/CO (1230tACJ Long Term Alternate Access Routes --- PARCEL 5 CP RRFOF] F. C]Niv Lola PAF Croak Rd PARCEL 2 GC(CO (Ii13n4CJ Dublin Blvd Extension PARCEL 6 P(PR I0 0C. PARCEL GC/CO 1138,C. r ,awe) DUBLIN CALIFORNIA 1157 Architectural Styles • Traditional Farmhouse • Modern Farmhouse • Contemporary • Contemporary Spanish • Modern French Country u is 1158 Landscape Guidelines • Plant Palette • Street Lighting • Fencing Design • Monument Entry Sign Development Agreement • Affordable Housing (Inclusionary Zoning Regulations Apply) • Dublin Blvd Extension Right -of -Way Dedication • Community Facilities District for Service and Maintenance of Public improvements Development Agreement • Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Credits • Dublin Blvd Extension Project Mitigation • Nature Community Park • Public Improvements Environmental Review • Prior CEQAAnaIysis — Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993) — East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002) — Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005) • Addendum — Equal or Less Severe Impacts Visually Sensitive Ridgeline Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (1993) Visually Sensitive Ridgelines / 12) • - n Visually Sensitive Ridgelands Legend 111 Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - No Development Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - Restricted Development EASTERN DUBLIN GPA•SP•EIR Wallace Roberts& Todd Figure &a- 11 • 1163 Public Outreach/Meetings • Community Meetings — March 27, 28 &April 3, 2024 — Combined total of 50 attendees • Planning Commission — June 11,2024 — Unanimously recommended approval (5-0) with the recommendation to remove the Contemporary architectural style Recommendation Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and take the following actions: I) Adopt a Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Adopting General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to Eliminate the 2.5-acre Public/Semi-Public Land Use Designation and to Convert Approximately 42.6 Acres of Open Space to the Parks/Public Recreation Land Use Designation; 2) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving Amendments to the Planned Development Zoning Stage I Development Plan Ordinance No. 32-05 and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the residential use; 3) Adopt a Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Maps; and 4) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and GH PacVest, LLC related to the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. 6'ce 4`Oesc DUBLIN CALIFORNIA 1166 Proposed Grading 1LWEAll. 2;1 EWE ]I SIICLx. r 1T ITI01 A$ J1EW1 IMQ. TRUSITIDI an !LW r1L.rE.:lirl.Y ?:1 Sir 1ILL IE F11YQG PE ELL41 1,1145114111 19215.41 4:11111 .11 50.111 14Y. R 1P1:4141 ID .' FTLr511:141 JJIr55 :' '141..1111 !.�`• -ry :r 1�51=ra PIPER 11 rwt.- WC fro EM I24 21.241 F➢1 1)E141D W711f il0 X. AANDDIf]1 FIEL11F11pwf W4 MOLL �kmWill E •*AY ' 1.Eir 4'r1 r$FM l F2 Q11.r. DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Proposed Scenic Ridgeline MH Mh AerrociaMecrien 2011A Line - - GC ti GOCCul GCJCOrl 5. 3SJSLah . ❑ZEASANTON _.-- Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005) Proposed Scenic Ridgeline Resources GC,Ca I M 1 Emiy r /11rprr t€r.or _ _ _ Zanu,e 1 l rRidgeGne I ' 1 COii.er Y3f7ycn Ftaci GOCCUI oucw n1 F�Se rviorv---'�� Ridgeline RI ',Quay Seradive Ridgplentl5'. No Development I 1 CoN�er Canyon fam Visually Sensiave Ridgelands: SOURCE. MacKay B Somps. 8-9-2005. lom DUBLIN 1168 CALIFORNIA July 16, 2024 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the City Clerk's office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the City Council be available to the public. The attached documents were received in the City Clerk's office after distribution of the July 16, 2024, Regular City Council meeting agenda packet. Item 6.1 1169 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Crystal De Castro Marsha Moore Neda Zayer; Jeff Baker FW: Comment Letter - Dublin Fallon 580 Project - City Council Monday, July 15, 2024 4:40:05 PM Comment Letter - Sachin Fallon 580 Project 7.15.24.pdf Kingswood Park (1).pdf Jordan Ranch Sauare Community Meetina Presentation - 6.28.22 adb7bfk5aw4.pdf image001.pnq Hi Marsha, Staff received the following comment letter for the City Council meeting tomorrow related to the Dublin Fallon 580 Project. DUBLIN 17 A .= .)1::. I•.J 1 :' THE NEW AMERICAN BACKYARD Crystal De Castro Senior Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 1 (925) 833-6628 FAX crystal.decastro(c�dublin.ca.gov 1 www.dublin.ca.gov Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champion a culture of diversity and inclusion. IMPORTANT NOTICE - Effective July 5, the City of Dublin is implementing a new Citizen Self -Service Portal for processing business license applications, public works permits, planning applications, building permits, and fire permits. For more details, visit www.dublin.ca.gov/CSS. During the transition, there will be a blackout period from June 27 to July 4, during which applications will not be accepted; permits, plans, and business licenses will not be processed or issued; and payments will not be taken. From: Sachin Bhandari <sachin.bhandari.msc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 4:24 PM To: Crystal De Castro <Crystal.DeCastro@dublin.ca.gov>; Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@dublin.ca.gov>; Neda Zayer <Neda.Zayer@dublin.ca.gov>; Jason Holder <jason@holderecolaw.com>; City Council <council@dublin.ca.gov> Cc: Subject: Comment Letter - Dublin Fallon 580 Project - City Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, 1170 Please see attached my comment letter regarding the Fallon 580 Project, which I believe is on the agenda for the City Council of Dublin. Please also see attached a concept description of Jordan Ranch Square Park, as well as a community meeting presentation put together by the Parks and Recreation Department during the design stages of the park. These documents are referred to in my comment letter. Best, Sachin 1171 7/14/2024 To the City Council of Dublin, I have previously written in regards to the Fallon 580 Project, in a comment letter submitted on 6/4/2024. Almost none of the content of my comment letter, or the lawyer that our homeowner's association (Kingswood HOA) obtained were addressed in the Planning Commission Meeting of 6/11/2024. Completely new information was presented at the Planning Commission meeting, which is unfortunate, because it did not allow an opportunity for public review and comment. One of the major revelations at that meeting was the extent of grading on Parcel 7 and Parcel 8. The substantial grading would completely change and adversely impact some of the visually significant ridgelines in the area. Below is an image taken from the PacVest presentation: LOOKING WEST (ZOOM) -GRADING Shortly after the Planning Commission meeting, the City of Dublin decided to put forth the matter to a City Council vote. This expedited final review leaves inadequate time to engage with air quality and traffic experts, with whom we are still in the process of engaging. The nature of `jamming' this project through is unfortunate and has created wide distrust in the good faith of the City of Dublin and in particular of the Planning Department in our community. In my own conversations with neighbors, particularly upon review of the minutes and video transcript of the meeting that took place on June 11th, the most prevalent emotion that community members expressed to me was disgust. People are disgusted with the frankly unseemly concessions to the developers and the complete intransigence in taking any feedback from the community into account. 1 1172 It should be noted that I have not met anyone opposed to the Dublin Blvd extension in principle, however the treatment of the various parcels - particularly Parcels 7 and 8 were of significant concern to our community and it is again a shame that rather than engage with our feedback the developer and the Planning Department decided to take a route of dissemblance, particularly around the disclosure of project details. I. Review of the Staff Report 1) Attachments 3 & 4 These attachments are new materials not presented at any prior meeting, and seem to further indicate an incomplete project proposal shared to the public. Both of these attachments make reference to `pocket parks' which are concerning, because the specifications of these parks are incomplete. Most parks have 24/7 lighting, and the presence of such lighting would be a significant nuisance to members of our community. In the case of Parcel 7, the `pocket park' is shown within a 25 - 35 foot distance from the adjacent building in Kingswood HOA - which would make it a source of nuisance lighting to the residents immediately to the north. The luminous output, color temperature, and duration of any lighting would need to be specified for a complete environmental analysis - and this has not been provided for. Any such lighting should be disclosed and analyzed per CEQA to demonstrate that it has a non -significant impact to immediate neighbors. Pocket Park with Ped./ Bike Access Parcel 7 2 -a- 6.50Ac Parcel 7 pocket park opportunity area We do presume that lighting would be present, at the pocket park was identified as a point for emergency vehicles to gather. 2 1173 Parcel 8 also has a `pocket park' presumably also with 24/7 lighting that would be a nuisance to the east facing side of our community. The nature of the lighting and specifications regarding this park are also incomplete and should be disclosed for a complete environmental analysis. Pocket Park with Fed. / Bike Access Parcel 8 L7.20 Ac Parcel 8 pocket park opportunity areas 2) Attachments 5 a. Section 81 calls for the allowance of Saturday work. This should never even be considered. The Croak Road Development (directly adjacent to the Fallon 580 project) violated conditions for use by initially working Saturdays and Sundays, and then later worked on Saturdays - to the considerable disruption of the adjacent community. As recently as Saturday 7/13/2024 - this has continued to be an issue with the Croak Road Development - for which the City of Dublin has a record of lax enforcement. 3 1174 ICctJUI CJ. 81. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non -City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case -by -case basis. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right-of-way are more restrictive. PW Start of Construction and On -going The City's own CEQA analysis cites mitigation measure MM 3.10/5.0 - which would limit construction activities to `normal daytime hours'. The City defines this as 7:30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday, so it is would seem that Saturday work would not be permissible per the City's own cited mitigation method for noise, see below: "MM 3.10/5.0 In order to minimize the impact of construction noise, all operations should comply with local noise standards relating to construction activities. When construction occurs near residential areas, then it should be limited to normal daytime hours to minimize the impact. Stationary equipment should be adequately muffled and located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible." (Attachment 10 - p. 127) b. The Temporary fencing called for is vague and also presents an incomplete specification which would not allow for a full environmental analysis. If this temporary fencing obstructs views of Visually Significant Ridgelines for the duration of construction - which could last up to 10 years (Attachment 8 - Section 5.8), then it would seem to have a significant impact unaccounted for in the City's CEQA analysis. For this not to be the case, temporary fencing must not obstruct views of visually significant ridgelines. 82. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the construction work perimeter to separate the construction area Start of from the public. All construction activities shall be Construction and confined within the fenced area. Construction PW On -going as materials and/or equipment shall not be operated/stored outside of the fenced area or Needed within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer. rk 4 1175 c. The traffic control plan presented is vague and provides no specific information as to how heavy construction equipment would be staged. In the case of the Croak Road Development, heavy construction equipment simply parked along Central Parkway and was and remains a visual eyesore in the community. While the City is well within its rights to allow for poorly planned visual eyesores, if this traffic control plan allowed for heavy construction equipment to obstruct the views of Visually Significant Ridgelines for the duration of construction - which could last up to 10 years (Attachment 8 - Section 5.8), then it would seem to have a significant impact unaccounted for in the City's CEQA analysis. For this not to be the case, the traffic control plan must not allow for construction equipment to obstruct views of visually significant ridgelines. This specifically means that heavy equipment cannot be staged along Pandora Way or block south facing views of Jordan Ranch Square Park, otherwise this would trigger a revised CEQA analysis. monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. 84. 85. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during construction shall be implemented through a City - approved Traffic Control Plan and shall be done with the goal of minimizing the impact on pedestrian circulation. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. A nnl ntIrmo olnnnr ch&II nrnnorn nlon fnr PW Start of Construction and On -going as needed Start of 5 1176 d. The widening of Pandora Way was not disclosed in any of the prior meetings or documents. This newly disclosed aspect of the project may obstruct visually significant ridgelines and was not accounted for in the City's CEQA Analysis. The widening of Pandora Way is also inconsistent with the development plans for Jordan Ranch Square Park whose conceptual design (shown to scale) does not illustrate a widening of Pandora Way and specifically does not indicate parking along the south border of Pandora Way. This is significant because the City Council voted to approve these designs, funding has been obtained, and construction is slated to start within 2 months of this letter per the Parks and Recreation Dept website. This would seem to be a significant impact to an already existing project that was unaccounted for in the Planning Dept's CEQA Analysis. 'FITNESS STATION: E :EOAESi.Nn1 newt CAI MERSi0R1' multi USE POTS COO T fi•OrCklL eq_ 6 1177 ti]YI LULU •.JI IL1II. FJ4 N 11 Y u11+1 1JY 111 1L 1_I LEI 141 111LL11 1\Lill 14U. 129. Pandora Way. Pandora Way is designated as a minor residential street with an existing right-of-way width of 33 feet and pavement width of 32 feet. The Applicant/Developer shall dedicate 9 feet of right- of-way along the project frontage to achieve 42 feet Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2024 Page 30 of 34 of total right-of-way and provide public street improvements. Street improvements shall include, but are not limited to: removal of existing curb and gutter, installation of new pavement, curb and gutter, 4.5-foot wide sidewalk, accessible ramps and utility laterals) to serve the residential development. 4 el n 3) Attachments 6 A I I ,. _ _ .1 _ The Tract Maps provided within Attachment 6 were not disclosed in any previous meeting nor provided to the public prior to the Staff Report on 7/12/2024. Without these tract maps, it is questionable whether a complete CEQA analysis was even possible to have been performed. 7 1178 C'HICTAL PARK REFER IO 1CAOI 8bi YTM GRADING PLAN FOR RETAILED GRADING AND RETAINING RAIL RMES. OVERALL PRELIMINARY GAMING PLAN WITH LARGE LOT VTR I FOR REFERENCE ONLY, INTERIM 2:1 SLOPE IS SIMILAR — TRANSITION AS JORDAN RANCH TRANSITION DIM TO SCHOOL PLAY FIEL➢S. INTERIM 2.1 SLOPE WILL SE REGMDEC TO ALLOW PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AT MORIN AND SCUM ENDS OF PIL ONCE PARK PROGRAMMING IS KNOAN. INTERIM 2:1 SLOPE RILL RE REGRADED TO ALLOW PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 10 CODLINTTY PARK ONCE PARK PROOPANLITHG IS RNGAfI. • \ N TO NATURE PARK FUN • MAINTENANCE OF NETLANC FEATHAE REFER TO TRACT 6666 VTR GAMING PLAN FOR DETAILED GRADING ANC _ Ex. PANDORA' RETAINING HALL GRNEE. OVERALL RR£GE LO AY I IS FO PIAM WITH WAY ONLY. LIT YTH IS FOR REFERENCE +� ONLY. CAT. ACCESS TO 60Th OAK PARS PAm L: FPM PJR.I, ROAD The first question raised by these tract maps is why the City of Dublin chose not to follow the mitigations cited in its CEQA Analysis. "MM 3.8/4.1 Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topography as much as possible. Grading beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only. " (Attachment 10 - pg 19) The question at hand is whether alterations of natural contours were minimized, and whether grading attempted to maintain the natural topography as much as possible. There has been no factual evidence presented that the natural topography was maintained as much as possible. Rather the developer asserted that it was infeasible, with no supporting evidence, which would seem to make this assertion unsubstantiated opinion. 8 1179 LOOKING WEST (ZOO1J- EXISTING The above image is taken from the developer's presentation during the 7/11/2024 Planning Commission meeting. In this image, we see a view of the property as it is today looking west. LOOKING WEST (ZOOM) - GRA_DING In the subsequent image, we see a simulation of the grading. Prima Facie, the grading does not maintain any of the natural contours within the boundaries of Parcel 7, and none of the natural topography has been maintained. This is because none of the existing topography is at the level of the Jordan Ranch Development to the North. What these tract maps and quite dramatic images show is that the City of Dublin has not followed its own mitigation measures as set forth in Attachment 10. 9 1180 Other mitigation measures called as part of the City's own CEQA Analysis "MM 3.8/3.0 Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. " (Attachment 10 - pg 19) "MM 3.8/7.0 Preserve views of designated open space areas." (Attachment 10 - pg 19) The meaning of `preserve' according to Oxford Languages is to maintain (something) in its original or existing state. The `natural open beauty of the hills' and the `views of designated open space areas' have not been preserved. It is ironic that the City states in its CEQA Analysis and reply to our comment letters that these mitigation methods allow for the proposed development plan. In fact MM 3.8/3.0 & 3.8/4.1 would instruct against re -grading Parcels 7 and 8 in the way in which it has been proposed, as these clearly do not preserve the hills, views, or natural topography cited by the mitigation methods. GHPacvest makes the argument that narrow corridors of these views remain, and this argument was repeated in replies to our comment letter. THOUGHTFUL PLANNING CottorrvroodCreek' K-8 school Proposed Community Park ALLON 580 s• LINES OF SITE •:• MAINTINING VIEWS - DUBLIN BAY W1 ST • •. - GN PACVEST, CCC DEVELOPMENT But actually the views are not preserved, because to preserve something is to retain it in its unaltered state (Oxford Languages). `Preserve' is the language used by the mitigation method. Not `Lessen the impact' or `Minimize'. The views from Jordan Ranch Square are not preserved. Furthermore, a closer inspection of the tract maps reveals that the proposed plan has a parking lot against the ledge of the ridge. So even if we were to accept the analysis of a narrow subset of the 10 1181 previous view constituting a `preservation' - which goes without saying that we are not aligned with said analysis - the views are still obstructed by a large parking lot in the back of the community. The views are still obstructed by parked cars. 4 A' Jw isi, __110). - ff, la rf I y 4 Y ,..w, „:3„:_-_,A„ 4) Attachment 8 a. 5.8 Development of the Project; Phasing, Timing. Since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo s (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the Parties' intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that this Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete any action, including without limitation, development of the Project within any period of time set by City. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create nor shall it be construed to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project, or liability in Developer under this Agreement if the development fails to occur. It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals. 11 1182 Section 5.8 - Phasing / Timing would seem to be inconsistent with the CEQA Analysis performed by the City and numerous mitigation measures set forth in the project that promise for limited duration or short-term impacts. For example, "MM 3.6/27.0 The potential impacts of short-term construction -related erosion and sedimentation can be reduced by timing grading activities to avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and by implementing one or more of the following interim control measures, which are designed to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity, and trap silt. Required measures for a specific project will be determined by the City and be a requirement of the grading permit. f Water bars; f Mulch -and -net blankets on exposed slopes; f Straw bale dikes; f Temporary culverts and swales; f Sediment traps; and/or f Silt fences." (Attachment 10 - pg 91) MM 3.6/27.0 discusses timing grading activities to avoid the rainy season. And yet the phasing clause of the contract stipulate, "... this agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate or complete any action, including without limitation, development of the Project within any period of time set by the City... It is the intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the property in accordance with its own time schedules and the project approvals." If there are no requirements, without limitation, of the development of the project within any period of time set by the City, then how can the City claim that grading activities will be timed to avoid rainy season as a mitigation measure? It would seem that the Developer is not contractually bound to perform any time based mitigation methods set forth in this project. There are numerous other mitigation methods that seem to also be questionable based on this contract. "MM 3.10/4.0 Developers shall submit to the City a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures to be taken to minimize impacts on existing planning area residents. The program will include a schedule for grading and other major noise generating activities that will limit these activities to the shortest possible number of days. Hours of construction activities shall be limited in keeping with Dublin ordinances. The Program for construction vehicle access to the site shall minimize construction truck traffic through residential areas. If construction traffic must travel through residential areas, then a mitigation plan should be developed. The Program may include barriers, berms or restrictions on hours." (Attachment 10 - pg 127) 12 1183 MM 3.10 / 4.0 seems as if it would be rendered completely unenforceable per the contract provision specified above. This is because, per the contract section 5.8, the City would have no legal standing to enforce a schedule for noise generating activities. If these mitigation methods are not enforceable, the City would need to revise its CEQA Analysis and take into account that certain mitigation measures cannot be enforced per its contract with the developer. In some cases this might lead to substantial noise or air quality impacts that were unaccounted for in Attachment 10. b. If the project allows for a large commercial space in Parcels 1 and 2, and these are intended to one day be linked to Dublin Blvd, Fallon Rd, and Croak Rd, it would seem that the Traffic Analysis of this project would be incomplete and the impacts of Parcels 1 and 2 would need to be factored into a CEQA analysis to get a complete picture of the traffic impact for this project. 13.10 Future Transportation Analysis. Developer acknowledges that future Site Development Review approvals will require additional transportation analysis, including but not limited to the following (Parcel references are to Parcel designations in Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8663): 13.10.1 The planned access along Dublin Boulevard to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, between Fallon Road and Croak Road. 13.10.2 The east -west connection between Fallon Gateway intersection and the signalized intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Croak Road. 13.10.3 The intersection of Dublin Boulevard / Croak Road. 13.10.4 The planned access along Dublin Boulevard to Parcel 3 and Parcel 9. 13.10.5 Adverse effects to the Fallon Road -El Charro Ro ad/I-580 Interchange. 13.10.6 Adverse effects to the Dublin Boulevard/Fallon Road intersection. 5) Attachment 10 - CEQA Analysis This CEQA analysis was not shared until July 12 2024 in the staff report, despite requests for documentation. These requests are captured in the City's own reply to the comment letters: 13 1184 "This comment requests the City to provide the commenter with all CEQA documentation completed for the proposed project and all public meetings or hearings concerning the proposed project." (Attachment 13, pg 8) Unfortunately, despite these requests made, and despite the City's acknowledgment of receiving said requests - the City has slow dripped out relevant information of the project days before key votes (such as the City Council vote) in an effort to prevent a full and complete disclosure of the incomplete CEQA Analysis that was performed. a. The key questions raised in Attachment 10: "Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant impacts?" (Attachment 10 - coversheet - pg 6 of PDF) The City's analysis is flawed. Yes, clearly there are substantial changes to the project. The proposed plan in 2024 is a completely different plan than what was proposed in 2002 or 2005. The density of development is different. The FAR ratio is different. Importantly, the City would allow for development on Visually Significant Ridges - altering the character of the neighborhood and destroying existing public views and views from the south side of the community to the west and east of Jordan Ranch Square Park. The traffic analysis performed has unrealistic assumptions of traffic usage along Central Parkway and is deficient in its analysis of smaller roads such as Pino Grande, Twain Harte, and Pandora Way. "Are there substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts?" (Attachment 10 - coversheet - pg 6 of PDF) Yes - the public will lose access to Visually Significant Ridgelines which were expressly designated in maps in the previous EIR as restricted development areas. This is both new and significant. Traffic - particularly at the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway will likely be at LOS D or worse. Grading will alter the existing topography. The commercial density of the project has numerous downstream significant impacts. "Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe than previously analyzed; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them?" (Attachment 10 - coversheet - pg 6 of PDF) Yes, in the case of the Visually Significant Ridgeline, Jordan Ranch Square Park was developed with a site specific plan to preserve the views of said ridgeline. This could not have been known 14 1185 at the time of the previous EIR. The plan, as presented by the Parks and Recreation Dept., and voted for and approved by the Dublin City Council, calls for preserving views from the park. The so called `mitigation methods' cited by the City's CEQA analysis actually show that the project as presented by the City is inconsistent with its own stated guidelines of preserving topography, views, and hills. The loss of these visually significant ridgelines alone has a significant effect not addressed in a previous EIR. b. Aesthetics Aesthetics ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: New Significant Impact Substantial increase in the Severity of an impact identified in the EDSP EHRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The Aesthetics portion of the CEQA Analysis is filled out incorrectly. x x The project would: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista. b) Would substantially damage scenic resources c) Would substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Note that public views are defined as those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points - as defined by the City's own CEQA Analysis. 15 1186 The Staff Report fails to mention the Visually Significant Ridgelines expressly shown in the 2005 EIR which specifically call for restricted development. The CEQA Analysis fails to mention these areas at all or even show them on maps in the staff report. SCURCE. MacKay & So ps. 650-2005 Exhibit 4.B.3a EXISTING SCENIC RIDGELAND RESOURCES CITY OF DUSLIN FALLON VILLAGE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT These visually significant ridgelines cut through significant parts of Parcels 7 and 8 and would be irrevocably altered via the proposed grading as part of the plan. Per the same analysis presented in page 10 of this document, the City has not followed its own mitigation measures. "MM 3.8/2.0 Implement the land use plan for the Project site which emphasizes retention of the predominant natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and sense of openness that characterize eastern Dublin." (Attachment 10 - pg 19) "MM 3.8/3.0 Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. " (Attachment 10 - pg 19) "MM 3.8/4.1 Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topography as much as possible. Grading beyond actual development areas shall be for remedial purposes only. " (Attachment 10 - pg 19) 16 1187 "MM 3.8/7.0 Preserve views of designated open space areas." (Attachment 10 - pg 19) "MM 3.8/8.1 The City should require that projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit a detailed visual analysis with development project application. Applicants will be required to submit graphic simulations and/or section drawn from affected travel corridors through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from scenic routes. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impacts." (Attachment 10 - pg 19) "MM 3.8/5.1 Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop (i.e., silhouetted) when viewed from designated scenic routes." (Attachment 10 - pg 20) Per the arguments made earlier in this comment (page 10), the views from Jordan Ranch Square (nor Fallon Rd, nor 580 - scenic highways) are not preserved. This is inconsistent with MM 3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM3.8/7.0 In the case of MM 3.8/2.0, the visually significant ridgeline, as identified by the City's own 2005 EIR is graded and filled, and then developed on top of, which is antithetical to the "sense of openness that characterizes eastern Dublin". Per MM 3.8/8.1 - No detailed visual analysis of altered views was completed and submitted with project documents in the staff report. This mitigation measure specifically instructs the City to `require' this as part of the application package. Finally, per MM 3.8/5.1 structures should not be located where they would obstruct scenic views, and yet per GHPacvests June 11 2024 presentation, there are structures in Parcel 7 that obstruct scenic views. The mitigation also calls for structures not appearing above an identified scenic ridgetop, and yet the visually significant ridgetops are graded, filled, and built on top of with structures as part of the plan presented in the tract maps in Attachment 6, and discussed as part of my comment letter in pages 7 - 11. 17 1188 re.� Central PkWeiosieemeffeenssyienr— ,911, THOUGHTFUL PLANNING Proposed Community Park • LINES OF SITE MAINTINING VIEWS "The Eastern Dublin EIR contains Figure 3.8-H, Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, depicting portions of the Eastern Dublin area that contains ridges and ridgelands which are considered to be visually sensitive. As identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the lower and hillside areas located closer to 1-580 with topographic elevations generally ranging between approximately 460 and 480 feet above sea level are designated as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-restricted development." As described above, the Eastern Dublin EIR determined that development associated with implementation of the EDSP would alter the character of existing scenic vistas and obscure important sightlines. These impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and listed above." (Attachment 10 - pg 21) The problem with this paragraph from the CEQA Analysis is the last sentence. In fact the City has shown disregard, if not contempt, for these mitigation methods when in all cases the adopted EDSP mitigation measures and related policies would instruct against filling and grading the visually significant ridgelines in Parcels 7 and 8. These mitigation methods are not implemented under any rational analysis of the project, and therefore the loss of the visually significant ridgline is in fact a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and would require a more detailed environmental review. "Further, the proposed project would be required to implement other Mitigation Measures (MM 3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM 3.8/4.4, MM 3.8/4.5, MM 3.8/5.1) identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which include design features to minimize visual impacts (e.g., sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation). With implementation of the aforementioned Mitigation Measures, no new impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts to scenic vistas and views, beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, would occur." (Attachment 10 - pg 22) This has been discussed above and also on pages 7 - 11 of this comment letter, however in no way shape or form does the current plan preserve the: — views — hills — topography 18 1189 — ridgelines — sense of openness that characterize eastern Dublin — natural contours which is the specific language used in MM 3.8/2.0, MM 3.8/3.0, MM 3.8/4.1, MM 3.8/7.0, MM 3.8/5.1. If the required obligation is to implement some or all of these mitigation measures, then certainly what has been presented fails to satisfy the requirement. The CEQA Analysis does not explain how the project has implemented these mitigation methods, and the ambiguity in their analysis points to the fact that there is no basis for which the City can claim any attempt was made to preserve the views, hills, topography, ridgelines, sense of openness that characterizes eastern Dublin, nor the natural contours of the land. Without these mitigation methods in place, the alteration of the visually significant ridgelines in parcel 7 and 8 substantially impacts a scenic vista, substantially damages scenic resources, and substantially degrades the existing visual character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. A picture of this ridgeline was captured in my original comment letter. Another view of this ridgeline can be seen here: This image was taken from a 2022 Dublin Parks and Recreation Department Presentation in which the Parks Department specifically identified the south facing views of the park as a significant aspect of their site analysis. 19 1190 SITE ANALYSIS LEGEND PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL VEHICULAR PATH OF TRAVEL =mom w PARKING * LIGHT POLES OREENSPACE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE RAN NEIGHBOR SNUA In 2022, after soliciting community feedback, Parks Dept put together the following concept for the Jordan Ranch Square Park, which was gathered from multiple community open sessions held at the site of the park: 20 1191 THE FOREST NEIGH 1 RI•Ip00 UNDER THE TREES FOREST • FECHIMItl(p VpERT E SREES 0 S,1K1E rr wv.E- MM. R Fl+asa RFg1r DUEL •Ll`.I�-,. KEY FEATURES - D! L%L% wQ[ CFhp•1•101,1ftfgL •.CF' TES - A01A1113 Md. EOGCS FOR PLAY f IFx OM 'FTTRSSSTATO4+ FTYE11.1.F EIEll 4 MEOLZ YAO SPORUS [OUAT • • LOCFS1 YMTN NRi,YFUYOERSTOr+ +• 1S1.DRA y/AT COMMUNITY INPUT • • .711 1LlifaF:'F .rcw.. saUw. • • JORDAN� RANCH NEHNECAHOOO SQUARE This concept for Jordan Ranch Square Park was voted and approved by the City Council of Dublin. In the lower right corner, one the key points raised by the Parks Dept was the 'Views' from the park. ."L ULLJ . U 1 11G GL.FLIG UE 1 FIE Lf4YYlY nnGr•L YEWS • M JE .hL:.PROTECTING VIEWS • QESIGM ljgrjalig I•}'ItS WILL BE EVALUATED AND 511-1DIED TO FIDURE OUT NOW TO BEST; TIT THE PARK AND THE Cc PIMUNITY, ▪ DESrH ACTION: 5ok WILL LOOK ARE RE4iSIHG DESIGL GEOMETRIES TO ACCENTUATE THE VIEWS FROM THE PARK, SEAT HAS ALSO BEEN PRO,nttED ALONG THE LAWN EDGE SO THAF VIEWS CAN BE PA551VELY APPRECIAITO, One of the major points of feedback from the community - as determined by the Parks Department and approved by the City Council - "Protecting Views". The Design Action — "Revising Design Geometries to accentuate the views from the park. Seat has also been provided along the lawn edge so that views can be passively appreciated." Views of what... ? Views of the Visually Significant Ridgeline - identified in the 2005 EIR. This park underwent a 2 year planning and review cycle, has approximately $2M budgeted for its 21 1192 completion and is due to break ground in August or September of 2024 per the latest updates from the Parks and Recreation Department. These views are not a matter of unsubstantiated opinion, actually they are captured in key planning documents by the City of Dublin and shaped the design of the park. The south facing lawn of the park was left open so that these views could be appreciated. The Fallon 580 project would completely alter the views from the park of the visually significant ridgeline. The existing ridgeline would no longer exist. Views from the park specifically would be limited to narrow streets, and the end of said views would be a parking lot. This is a substantial impact to a scenic view, and the CEQA analysis document itself refers to these views as from a publicly accessible vantage point. 6) Attachment 13 "As described in the Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to standardized tract development, obscuring distinctive natural features, alteration of hillsides, ridges, and watercourses, alteration of Dublin's visual identity as a freestanding city, scenic vistas, and scenic routes. All of these impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR." (Attachment 13 - p. 3) Unfortunately the CEQA Analysis was not made available until July 12 2024. As described in significant detail in pages 7 - 11, and 15 - 21, the City has failed to incorporate nearly all of the mitigation methods cited in the CEQA analysis and in fact the mitigation methods cited actually instruct the city NOT to alter the views, hills, topography, natural contours, etc. "In compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the City has prepared and adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards which contains five overall scenic corridor implementing policies, specific scenic corridor zone policies, and development standards for 6 zones and implementation procedures that promote the preservation of scenic vistas from the three transportation corridors — Tassajara Road, Interstate 580 (1-580) and Fallon Road. Views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantages are not identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards or the EDSP EIRs as significant vistas or designated scenic routes" (Attachment 13 - p.3) Per the City's own CEQA Analysis, it defines Public Views as "those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point". Jordan Ranch Square Park would certainly be a publicly accessible vantage point. 22 1193 quality QT pu0i14 views QT rrle site anU its urrounaings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in a irkini-rrrri #art rtrrtiirwr rrtirti ir• sari+k More importantly however, in the Parks and Recreation Dept Community Meeting held on June 28 2022, the Park and Rec Dept identified scenic views facing south from Jordan Ranch Square Park as a key part of their site analysis. This was codified in a concept design for the park, which was put together with significant community feedback and prepared by the Parks Department, and was then voted and approved by the Dublin City Council, which specifically identified the the south facing views from the park as a key aspect of the site which would influence the park's design. What this all points to is that the City of Dublin and the community surrounding the park has identified the south facing views from the park as scenic vistas. The views overlook the VSRs identified in the 2005 EIR, which were marked for restricted development. The CEQA Analysis and rebuttal to the comment letter are flawed in failing to consider the impact to the scenic vistas of the VSRs from the vantage point of Jordan Ranch Square Park. Furthermore, the views of the same VSRs are also impacted from the spots identified as scenic highways - such as Fallon Rd and 580. The VSR is proposed to be graded and filled, in direct opposition to the mitigation measures set forth in the previous EIRs. "The project applicant has determined that due to the site topography, it is infeasible to place the residential buildings downslope due to inadequate access and connectivity between the proposed project and the adjacent neighborhood to the north. The proposed project would grade the site to provide a level building pad for the proposed residential development at the same elevation as the adjacent neighborhood." (Attachment 13 - p. 4) Where is the evidence that supports this claim? In the absence of any documentation showing the placement of residential buildings in a different configuration, this would seem to be an unsubstantiated claim. Dublin has other projects built downslope from a visually significant ridgeline. A prime example of a development project designed to protect scenic resources designated VSR is the nearby `Irongate' development. Irongate provides connectivity with the surrounding community at a different grade via pedestrian pathways, and not roadways. I proposed such pathways in my prior comment letter to no avail. "Due to the project's location in the southern portion of the Fallon Village planning area, proposed buildings would not obstruct views of the main scenic ridgeline, as designated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which borders the larger Eastern Dublin planning area to the north and east." (Attachment 13 - p. 4) This is on its face a false statement. The original ridgeline as designated in the 2005 EIR would be filled in with grading. Whatever an observer might be looking at post project completion is something other than the protected ridgeline designated in the 2005 EIR. 23 1194 "Further, the proposed residential development on Parcel 7 has been designed with breaks between the buildings to preserve some view locations from the north looking south over the ridge where the topography slopes down." (Attachment 13 - p. 4) The meaning of 'preserve' according to Oxford Languages is to maintain (something) in its original or existing state. The original state of the views are significantly compromised in the plan presented by the City. Additionally, even the narrow corridors of views that remain are still obstructed by the parking lot - where parked cars would still obstruct views. Finally, the original ridgeline would be filled and graded, and thus not consistent with the 2005 EIR which would restrict development in these VSRs. "in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, to ensure the project is consistent with City of Dublin design standards, property development regulations and performance standards related to aesthetics and to lessen the severity of visual changes resulting from the proposed project." (Attachment 13 - p. 4) See my previous replies to the supposed mitigation measures. The mitigation measures cited by the city are actually evidence that the project would require a deeper environmental review. "Currently, the intersection of Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA) is an unsignalized all -way stop. The LOS & delay levels did not trigger a need to change the control type and signalize this location under any of the analyzed scenarios. Based on the near term plus project and cumulative plus project volumes expected at this location, the signal warrant analysis did not indicate a signal is warranted at this location. However, as traffic patterns change and more development is added, the City will periodically conduct new counts and reassess the control and safety at this location." (Attachment 13 - p. 6) The City's arguments are non -responsive to the issues presented at specifically the intersection of Pino Grande and Central Parkway. While the City's analysis tries to come up with a statistical model spread out over all the major thoroughfares of Dublin - it fails to take an intensely local model and consider the impacts to the small feeder roads into and out of Parcels 7 and 8. Implausibly, the City traffic report shows no additional eastbound or westbound traffic on Central Parkway during rush hour. The City has not taken into account the traffic situation on Pino Grande, Twain Harte, or Pandora Way. These traffic impacts are significant and are signs of deficiencies in the traffic analysis. "A new connection from Croak Road to the future planned Dublin Boulevard Extension will be constructed and will further disperse both Dublin East Ranch and full buildout of GH PacVest traffic to alternative routes, thus contributing to the same or improved LOS at Central Parkway & Panorama/ Pino Grande Road (Intersection #15 in the LTA)." (Attachment 13 - p. 8) 24 1195 This is irrelevant since Parcel 7 is not connected to either Croak Rd or Dublin Blvd per the presented plan, and the previous comment letter specifically focused on the cumulative impact and how Parcel 7 would make traffic worse around Pino Grande, Twain Harte, and Pandora Way. Additionally Parcels 7, 8, and the Croak Rd Development are all assigned to Cottonwood Creek Elementary and thus traffic would be heavily biased to using Central Parkway to drop off children during am rush hour traffic. "Traffic will have the option to make a U-turn at the All -Way Stop control intersection at Central/Croak (unless the City decides to restrict this movement) or turn right onto Croak Road that connects to Fallon Road on the south. Residents will also be able to turn left onto Central Parkway at Pino Grande Road." (Attachment 13 - p. 9) During rush hour, making a U-turn at a 4 way stop would be highly impractical. The City neglected to consider alternative measures such as a traffic circle that could have allowed for effective U-turns in the Croak Rd Development. This means that making a right turn from Twain Harte and making a U-turn is realistically not an option for most traffic, and largely traffic from Camino Loop would be biased to making a left turn and utilizing Pino Grande to connect to Central. Making a Right turn from Twain Harte to Central, then a right turn at Croak, and then taking Croak to Fallon is roughly 60% longer of a route to get to either of the 580 exits. Also this is highly impractical for anyone in the community whose children attend Cottonwood Creek - which is the assigned school for both the Croak Rd Development and the Fallon 580 Development. Which means that traffic is generally biased towards taking Central Parkway - exacerbating the poor traffic planning done for both the Croak Rd and Fallon 580 projects. "Central Pkwy would not be the only route that is available under near -term conditions. The model assumes a portion of the 500+ residential units would use Central Parkway in the near -term as expected. However, traffic from the East Ranch development would be able to use alternate routes such as Croak Road to Fallon Road and the northern portion of the development would also use Positano Parkway to Fallon" (Attachment 13 - p. 9) The specific table from my original comment letter, which I pulled from the traffic report, shows no increase in vehicular traffic moving either east bound or west bound on Central Parkway during morning rush hour times. Even if some traffic were to use Croak Road or Positano Parkway - the model used here is flawed. This is prima facie impossible. Many of the people living in the Croak Rd Development and the proposed Fallon 580 Development would be assigned to Cottonwood Creek Elementary school and would require driving to the school to drop off their children. The City's arguments that because there are other roads available, no traffic would increase on Central Parkway during rush hour is simply not credible and reflective of the poor traffic planning done for both developments 25 1196 7) Attachment 14 "KOA makes several unsubstantiated or erroneous claims that the Project should be evaluated in its own new EIR — the fourth EIR- for this area, because according to the commenter: (1) the Project allegedly exceeds the intensity of development evaluated in the prior EIRs; and (2) the EIR Addendum relies on outdated analyses presented in the prior EIRs. The commenter seems focused on a claim that the City failed to assess alleged impacts to open space and scenic vistas, traffic impacts, and climate change impacts. For the reasons detailed below, KOA's unsubstantiated claims do not warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR. KOA's letter raise these issues without any evidence and KOA failed to meet its burden of proof required under CEQA." (Attachment 14 - p. 3) KOAs claims are substantiated by the previous EIRs which call for the protection of Visually Significant Ridgelines which are captured in maps that overlie Parcels 7 and 8. They are substantiated by documents prepared by the Dublin Parks and Recreation office that discuss the importance of preserving views from Jordan Ranch Square, they also substantiated by the concept plan voted on and endorsed by the Dublin City Council for Jordan Ranch Square Park that specifically calls for preserving views from the park. The substantial impact is that the park was designed around preserving the views, is budgeted for, and slated for construction to imminently begin, and is now jeopardized by the destruction of VSR views from the park. Other evidence are numerous discrepancies in mitigation methods cited by the City and the plan which is actually inconsistent with the cited mitigation methods. Finally the fact that the original EIRs call for a completely different plan. "The EIR Addendum provides that several mitigation measures, which include subjecting the Project to design review, requirements for sensitive grading, sensitive engineering design, revegetation, are sufficient to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. " (Attachment 14 - p. 4) These mitigation methods were discussed in other areas of my comments and do not in fact mitigate the destruction of the views. In fact the city improperly cites mitigations when in fact the mitigations call for keeping the original topography where possible. Crucially the City has never demonstrated with any evidence that it would be impossible or infeasible to preserve the original VSR by minimally grading Parcel 7 and Parcel 8. The only point presented is the `unsubstantiated opinion' of the developer that it would be infeasible. There has been no factual evidence presented that parcel 7 or 8 could not have residential buildings built downslope of the ridgeline, or in such a way as to minimize grading and limit development. 26 1197 "In North Coast, the Court of Appeal upheld as valid a mitigation measure requiring the preparation and implementation of a future landscaping plan as sufficient for reducing the visual and scenic impacts of a proposed water tank. " (Attachment 14 - p. 4 - 5) This is not an applicable case. In North Coast the situation was how to hide a visually unappealing element (water tank) with visually appealing mitigation (landscaping). In this case, the previous EIR specifically cites the ridgeline as `visually significant' as demarcated on an exhibit in 2005. The planning and recreation department in 2022 cited the same views as key elements of Jordan Ranch Square Park. In December 2022, the Dublin City Council voted for a conceptual design which specifically states that preserving views (of the ridgeline) as a key element of the park. In 2024, shortly after this comment letter, the park is slated to begin construction, with millions of dollars slated for development. North Coast is not applicable, because in this case we are not hiding a visually unappealing element, but rather preserving (`keeping in its original state' per Oxford Languages) a visually appealing element. The City plan as presented would not be consistent with preserving the views, and in fact the mitigation measures cited by the City actually instruct the city to leave the topography unaltered. 8) Conclusion The development of Parcels 7 and 8 within Visually Significant Ridgelines has a significant aesthetic impact which would create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This scenic vista is identified in the 2005 EIR on a map directly overlaid on Parcels 7 and 8. The vista is identified as recently as 2022, 2023, and 2024 in planning documents prepared by the City of Dublin for the Jordan Ranch Square Park as being key elements of the site. It would seem indefensible to claim that there is no significant impact to the aesthetic nature of these scenic views once they are filled and graded. The claim made that `mitigation measures' are being taken is ridiculous on its face when the mitigation measures specifically state that natural topography, hills, contours, views, etc should be preserved - which according to Oxford Language means `unaltered'. The City Council should shake off the deficient analysis of the planning department and the unfounded enthusiasm of the planning commission and realize that for our community - having scenic views of the ridgeline destroyed and replaced with housing within 25 - 35 feet of our southern boundary is not a good outcome. There is room for community feedback in this plan, but it would require the City Council to postpone their vote on this issue. Best, Sachin Bhandari Kingswood HOA Board Member & Citizen of Dublin 27 1198 .4 DUBLIN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY MEETING O1 JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE DUNE 28TH, 2022 1199 PROJECT BACKGROUND JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE INTRODUCTION This 2-acre park in the City of Dublin's Jordan Ranch Development will be designed as a neighborhood square for the surrounding community. Located off of Central Parkway and adjacent to Cottonwood Creek School, this park will be a central open space for the area and a playful gathering space for all. MASTER PLAN 2022 Parks and Recreation Master Plan: Designates parcel as Future Neighborhood Square PROJECT COST $1.9 million PROJECT COMPLETION Spring 2024 FUTURE CONTACT -� Send emails via private zoom chat to Elisa for up-to-date project information. ''MELINE AND PROCESS PUBLIC PROCESS BEGINS WITH A COMMUNITY SURVEY 224 RESULTS RECEIVED! JUNE 28TH JUNE 2022 COUNCIL MEETING TO PRESENT CONCEPT PLANS ON -SITE COMMUNITY MEETING TO PROVIDE INPUT ON DESIGN ALTERNATIVES IDO WE ARE HERE! ZOOM MEETING TO DEVELOP PARK VISION AND REVIEW SURVEY RESULTS FALL 2022 THRU SPRING 2023 00 OCTOBER 18TH AUGUST 13TH CONSTRUCTION BEGINS PLAN DEVELOPMENT 0 JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE SEPTEMBER 19TH 0 PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MEETING SPRING 2024 SUMMER 2023 YOUR PARK IS - COMPLETE! EXISTING CONDITIONS JORDAN RANCHIGHBNE SQUARE PROJECT LOCATION FINDINGS: MOST RESPONDENTS LIVE WITH 1/4 MILE OF THE PARK 100% 90% 80% 81.42% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 9.29% 7.52% 1.77% 0% WITHIN 1/4 WITHIN 1/2 MILE WITHIN 1 MILE MORE THAN 1 MILE MILE • CENTRAL PARKWAY CENTRAL PARKWAY JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE COMMUNITY PARKS EXISTING PARKS WITHIN 2 MILES JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBO SQUARE " SEAN DIAMON THE WAVE 1.8 MILES FROM JORDAN RANCH SQUARE 2 POOLS + A WATER PARK oF R 1204 DUBLIN SCALE STUDIES HOW DOES THE 2 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE COMPARE TO LOCAL PARKS CLOVER PARK - 2 ACRES PLAYGROUND, PICNIC AREA, INFORMAL LAWN AREA, PUBLIC ART, FITNESS EQUIPMENT, RESTROOM JORDAN RANCH PARK - 5 ACRES TWO PLAYGROUND AREAS, A BASKETBALL COURT, A GRASS VOLLEYBALL COURT, A GROUP PICNIC AREA WITH TABLES AND BARBEQUE'S, SPACES FOR INFORMAL FAMILY PICNICS, OPEN SPACE MEADOW FOR INFORMAL SPORTS, GAMES AND ACTIVITIES TRAIL ACCESS, WATER FOUNTAINS, AND RESTROOMS SEAN DIAMOND PARK - 4 ACRES TWO PLAYGROUNDS, A TENNIS COURT, GRASS VOLLEYBALL COURT, SHADED PICNIC AREA, WALKING AND EXERCISE PATHS, ZIP LINE, ROSE GARDEN, RESTROOM AND A GATHERING SPOT AT THE CENTER OF THE PARK FALLON SPORTS PARK -60 ACRES FOUR LIGHTED SYNTHETIC TURF SOCCER FIELDS, CRICKET FIELD, SEVEN BASE- BALL FIELDS (4 LITTLE LEAGUE, 2 LIGHTED SOFTBALL, 1 90' LIGHTED DIAMOND, 5 LIGHTED BATTING CAGES), FOUR LIGHTED BOCCE BALL COURTS, FOUR SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS, AN ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND, RESTROOMS, CONCESSION BUILDING, GROUP PICNIC, AND ADDITIONAL PARKING JORDAN RANCHIGHBNE SQUARE SITE ANALYSIS - LEGEND PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL VEHICULAR PATH OF TRAVEL mimmm PARKING �C LIGHT POLES GREENSPACE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT =MUM(-- --- --- MOM= PROJECT SITE JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE 1206 DUBLIN COMMUNITY FINDINGS: MOST RESIDENCE ARE COMPRISED OF YOUNG FAMILIES 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 45.87% 30% 20% 10% 0% i DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18? (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY) 44.95% 29.36% 12.84% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE WHICH ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES BEST APPLIES TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD? 81.45% 0-6 YEARS OLD 7-11 YEARS OLD 12-17 YEARS OLD NO COUPLE WITH MULTI- COUPLE, SINGLE, NO SINGLE WITH SINGLE, CHILDREN AT GENERATIONAL CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN AT CHILDREN HOME HOME NO LONGER HOME NO LONGER AT HOME ACTIVE FACILITIES FINDINGS: RESIDENCE WANT VARIOUS MULTI -USE ACTIVE FACILITIES 10 8 6 4 2 0 WHICH ATHLETIC & ACTIVE FACILITIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN YOUR FUTURE PARK? RANK THE OPTIONS WITH 1 BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND 8 THE LEAST. 6.0 5.3 5.3 5.0 4.7 3.7 3.7 2.6 PLAY MULTI -USE WALKING TENNIS BASKETBALL VOLLEYBALL FITNESS PICKLE BALL STRUCTURES PRACTICE LOOP COURT COURT COURT EQUIPMENT COURT FIELD JORDAN RANCHIGHBNE SQUARE SCALE STUDIES HOW DOES THE 2 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE ACCOMMODATE ACTIVITIES SOCCER FIELD IF TENNIS, VOLLEYBALL, PADDLE TENNIS 1 JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE FULL BASKETBALL COURT .2 MILE WALKING LOOP 1209 DUBLIN AMENITIES RESULTS FINDINGS: MOST RESIDENCE WOULD LIKE A SPACE WITH AMENITIES FOR OUTDOOR LEISURE AND BACKYARD ACTIVITIES IN A COMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT WHICH AMENITIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN YOUR PARK? RANK THE OPTIONS WITH 1 BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND 13 THE LEAST. 14 12 12.0 10 8 6 4 2 0 9.1 9.1 7.6 7.3 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.7 • F 5.9 5.0 4.8 3.9 JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE COVERED DEMON- INFORMAL INFORMAL AMPHI- VIEWING NATIVE BBQ AREA CHESS PING HORSE CORN- TIC TAC SEATING STRATION LAWN PICNIC THEATER PLATFORM HABITAT PONG SHOE HOLE TOE GARDEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD BREAKOUT GROUPS FOR DISCUSSION ACTIVE FACILITIES PRIMARY FACILITIES PLAY STRUCTURES MULTI -USE PRACTICE FIELD WALKING LOOP TENNIS COURT BASKETBALL COURT: FULL OR HALF VOLLEYBALL COURT FITNESS EQUIPMENT PICKLE BALL ADDITIONAL INPUT CRICKET FIELD TRAMPOLINE CYCLING PULL-UP BARS BMX TRACK ZIP LINE SOCCER HANDBALL BASKETBALL COURT AMENITIES JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE MISCELLANEOUS SWIMMING RESTROOMS LIGHTING FOR SAFETY PRIMARY FACILITIES COVERED SEATING DEMONSTRATION GARDEN INFORMAL LAWN INFORMAL PICNIC AMPHITHEATER VIEWING PLATFORM NATIVE HABITAT BBQ AREA CHESS PING PONG HORSE SHOE CORN HOLE TIC TAC TOE ADDITIONAL INPUT GARDEN TREES BBQ GAZEBO DOG PARK COVERED PICNIC BENCHES Eta DUBLIN �ANCH BREAKOUT QUESTIONS NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE 1. Are there any findings you would like to review? 2. Are there any findings that are unexpected? 3. I would like to hear what is the most important thing you would like in the park. 4. Other takeaways or final thoughts? 1212 DUBLIN WHAT'S NEXT TAKE SURVEY RESULTS AND PROVIDE THREE CONCEPTS FOR COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ON -SITE + INPUT ON AUGUST 13TH, 2022 JOR N RANCHie SQUARE EM DUBLIN Attachment 3 THE FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES FOREST PARK - NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES NATURE PLAYGROUND - EXPLORING THE FOREST FLOOR DUBLIN BEACH- FUN UNDER THE SUN � SHADE CANOPY GROVE- DISCOVER PLACES OF RESPITE IN THE FOREST DUBLIN CALIFORNiA KEY FEATURES - DENSE SHADE CANOPY FOR INFORMAL ACTIVITIES - ACTIVATED PARK EDGES FOR PLAY - FLEX LAWN 4 ;r NATURE LAYGROUN rt t_. . CENTRAL PAR PA N D O R A WAY 4 D m 0 10' 20' 1"=20' PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: COMMUNITY INPUT PROVIDED IS SWA'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY'S RESPONSES. THE THEMES IDENTIFIED WERE EVALUATED AND EXTRACTED BY NOTING COMMENTS THAT APPEARED MULTIPLE TIMES AND ON DIFFERENT DESIGN OPTIONS. WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT FEASIBLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK. THESE COMMENTS WERE RELATED TO THE REQUEST TO INCLUDE WATER FEATURE, CERTAIN SPORTS COURT FACILITIES THAT WOULD NOT FIT THE SITE, AND RESTROOMS FACILITIES. COMMUNITY INkL DESIGN • COMMON THEME: THE FOREST DESIGN WAS THE COMMUNITIES 1ST CHOICE. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: PEOPLE SEEMED TO LIKE THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THIS OPTION AND HOW IT LENT ITSELF TO THE VALLEY VIEWS. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT AND WILL INCORPORATE COMMUNITY INPUT. SPORTS AND FITNESS • COMMON THEME: THE COMMUNITY NOTED THAT SOME SORT OF SPORTS COURT AND FITNESS ACTIVITY, WAS IMPORTANT. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A SPORT COURT IS WANTED BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE THE MAIN ELEMENT OF THE PARK. • DESIGN ACTION: THE SPORTS COURT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT, AND SWA WILL BEGIN TO LOOK HOW TO INCORPORATE A MULTI -USE SPORTS COURT AND BE DEVELOPED INTO THE DESIGN. PLAYGROUND • COMMON THEME: A PLAYGROUND BE FOR CHILDREN OF ALL AGES. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: DESIGN A PLAYGROUND FOR ALL AGES AND INCLUDE PLAYGROUND SHOULD INCLUDE THE ELEMENT WANTED BY THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WERE A FEW PLAY ELEMENTS IN OTHER DESIGN OPTIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THE FOREST DESIGN SCHEME • DESIGN ACTION: AS THE CONCEPT SCHEME MOVES INTO SCHEMATIC DESIGN SWA WILL DESIGN A PLAYGROUND THAT RESPONDS TO THE COMMUNITIES SUGGESTIONS. BBQ • COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENT NOTING THAT MORE BBQ AREAS ARE NEEDED. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: ADD BBQ AREAS TO ADDRESS THE WANT. • DESIGN ACTION: BBQ'S WILL BE ADDED TO EACH OF THE PICNIC AREAS. THE FINAL LOCATIONS AND QUANTITY OF BBQ'S WILL BE EVALUATED AND INCLUDED IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE. GARDEN • COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR A POLLINATOR GARDEN [SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN) • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A POLLINATOR GARDEN OR PROPERLY SELECTED PLANTING PALLET WOULD FIT NICELY INTO THE FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT. A COMMUNITY GARDEN MAYBE POSSIBLE, HOWEVER THIS WILL NEED TO BE EVALUATED BY THE CITY. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL BEGIN TO SELECT PLANT MATERIALS IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE, AND WILL INCLUDE POLLINATOR PLANTING IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN. A COMMUNITY GARDEN DOES NOT FIT INTO THE PROGRAM ELEMENT OR GUIDELINES OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK, SO THIS ELEMENT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN. FLEX LAWN • COMMON THEME: FLEX LAWN WAS SEEN AS AN IMPORTANT ITEM, AND SEVERAL USES WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY, SUCH AS SPORTS LIKE VOLLEYBALL, AND ADDITIONAL PARK SEATING. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THE FLEX LAWN IS IMPORTANT AND WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DESIGN. • DESIGN ACTION: THE FLEX LAWN WILL BE INCLUDED; HOWEVER, NO PERMANENT SPORTS ELEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT PREVENT THE COMMUNITY MEMBER FROM SETTING GAMES AND SPORTS ON AN AS NEEDED BASES, AND THE LAWN WILL BE DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE USES. BENCH SEATING WILL BE ADDED TO THE EDGE OF THE LAWN AREA. VIEWS COMMON THEME: PROTECTING VIEWS • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THIS WILL BE EVALUATED AND STUDIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST SUIT THE PARK AND THE COMMUNITY. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL LOOK ARE REVISING DESIGN GEOMETRIES TO ACCENTUATE THE VIEWS FROM THE PARK. SEAT HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED ALONG THE LAWN EDGE SO THAT VIEWS CAN BE PASSIVELY APPRECIATED. SHADE • COMMON THEME: SHADE IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: WE WILL HAVE TO STUDY THIS TO MAKE SURE WE PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SHADE ELEMENTS. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL FURTHER LOOKING INTO ENSURING SHADE IS PROVIDED IN KEY AREAS. JORDAN-I RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD LSQUARE FLEX LAWN FOREST PLAY BIKE PARKING 1214 1 I '-' Holder Law Group GJ July 15, 2024 VIA EMAIL ONLY 1980 Mountain Blvd., Ste. 211 Oakland, CA 94607 City of Dublin City Council Michael McCorriston, Mayor Sherry Hu, Vice Mayor Kashef Qaadri, Councilmember Jean Josey, Councilmember Janine Thalblum, Councilmember Email: city.clerk@dublin.ca.gov holderecolaw.com (510) 338-3759 jason@holderecolaw.com City of Dublin Attn: Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Email: Crystal.DeCastro@dublin.ca.gov Re: Follow Up Comments Concerning Proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (PLPA-2023- 00033; APNs 905-0001-006-03, 985-0027-002, 985-0027-005, and 985-0027-004) Dear Mayor McCorriston, Honorable Members of the Dublin City Council and Ms. De Castro: On behalf of Kingswood Owners Association ("KOA") we submit the following comments concerning the proposed Dublin Fallon 580 Project (the "Project"). We previously submitted comments to the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, neither City of Dublin ("City") staff nor the commission responded to or substantively addressed these comments prior to the Planning Commission's vote to recommend the Project for City Council approval.' We respectfully submit the comments below, addressing the supplemental explanations and analysis provided in the staff report to the City Council and attachments thereto, with the intention of fostering a cooperative and efficient dialogue with City representatives and the Project applicant to resolve the issues identified herein. As stated in our prior comments, due to numerous unanalyzed and unmitigated Project impacts, KOA (1) objects to substantial intensification of commercial uses as inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("EDSP") and its associated EIR, without adequate supplemental environmental review, (2) objects to the proposed use of an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs as the environmental clearance document for this Project because the Project involves more than "minor" changes to existing Specific Plan designations and the changes proposed will cause new significant impacts, (3) urge modifications to the Project as proposed to avoid or reduce unstudied or downplayed significant environmental impacts, including substantially increased i See HLG Comments to Planning Commission re Dublin Fallon 580 Project, dated June 4, 2024; see also Sachin Bhandari comments regarding Project, dated June 4, 2024. KOA's prior comments are incorporated herein by reference. 1215 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 2 traffic congestion, traffic safety impacts, air quality impacts, construction noise impacts, significant impacts to public scenic resources, and impacts related to climate change and (4) reiterates its request for timely notice pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in order to participate meaningfully in the process. Until the issues raised by KOA and other community stakeholders are resolved satisfactorily, we request that the City Council postpone its consideration of the Project for approval. KOA understands that acquiring dedicated land for the future Dublin Boulevard Extension is a primary factor motivating cooperation between the City and the Project proponent. While KOA agrees that improving links Dublin and Livermore through this extension is a laudable goal and will provide local and regional benefits, the association's objections relate to how the Project was planned and the negative environmental impacts on the existing community adjacent to the Project site. It is unfortunate that the desire for a Dublin Boulevard Extension may interfere with responsible and responsive planning for the development of Parcels 7 and 8. The issues KOA had identified in comments could be remedied if the City and Project proponent were serious about working with the adjacent community to avoid or minimize Project impacts (as we have urged), but the intransigence of City staff and the developer to community feedback may only intensify community opposition and lead to litigation over the Project. This is unfortunate and conflicts with what everyone, including KOA, wants. City staff prepared an Initial Study for the Project and based on the Initial Study ("I/S") determined that a CEQA addendum is the appropriate environmental review document. The following comments are based on our review of the I/S and Addendum for the Project, the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, the updated EDSP, prior environmental review documents, and City -approved plans for the development of Jordan Ranch Square. These comments elaborate upon and supplement comments we submitted to the Planning Commission on June 4, 2024. The I/S analysis generally references and relies upon mitigation measures described in the following documents: the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report ("Specific Plan EIR"), the 2002 East Dublin Properties Stage Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR ("2002 SEIR"), and the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR ("2005 SEIR") (collectively, the "EDSP EIRs"). The EDSP EIRs, collectively comprising thousands of pages of information and analysis, were not made accessible through the City's website until June 5, 2024 (just 6 days before the Planning Commission meeting where the Project was considered).2 The complex multi -tiered analyses (upon which the Addendum's analysis heavily depends) should have been made available and readily accessible to the public for review much earlier in the environmental review and administrative process for the Project. Failing to provide early and convenient access to the first -tier environmental impact analysis when a CEQA addendum is utilized conflicts with CEQA's informational purposes and 2 See Exh. A - email response from Senior Planner Crystal De Castro re links to EDSP EIRs posted to project website, dated June 5, 2024. 1216 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 3 undermines meaningful public participation. Staff provided no justification for making the EDSP EIRs available to the public for review so late in the process. Adding to the challenging task of reviewing the already voluminous Project materials and multi -tiered analysis, the City and Project proponent have subjected stakeholders and the reviewing public to yet another "data dump." Taken together, the staff report and the 15 referenced attachments released only a few days ago comprise 1,203 pages. Much of the information provided in this material is new information (not included in the I/S and its appendices).3 Instead of being provided only a few days before the City Council meeting, this new detailed information contained in the attachments to the staff reports should have been provided to the public for review much sooner in the environmental review process. Taken together, the unavailability of the EDSP EIRs and the late release of voluminous information in the staff report and its attachments suggests an effort to prevent rather than foster meaningful public participation. To respond to KOA's legitimate concerns and enable meaningful public participation in the process, the City Council should require major revisions to the Project as designed, order a revised environmental impact analysis, and postpone its consideration of the Project. I. DISCUSSION A. Substantial Project Changes Warrant a Stand -Alone EIR As stated in comments to the Planning Commission, an Addendum is the wrong form of CEQA document for analyzing the intense land use changes proposed for this Project. Addenda to EIRs are intended for "minor" changes to projects where adequate environmental review has already occurred, not for situations where, as here, major changes are proposed and substantial evidence supports the conclusion that these changes will cause unanalyzed significant impacts.4 Contrary to assertions in Attachments 13 and 14 to the staff report, development of the Project site as currently proposed was not evaluated previously in the EDSP EIRs. The 1993 EIR and the 2002 SEIR were program -level environmental review documents that generally analyzed the impacts of developing a wide geographic area; these analyses did not purport to analyze development of the Project site at any level of detail. The 2005 Fallon Village SEIR, which more specifically analyzed the impacts of developing the Project area, analyzed a project that differs substantially to the pattern of development that has since materialized. The Project, as proposed, includes additional changes to the previously analyzed pattern and intensity of development. 3 New information and analyses is provided in the staff report and Attachments 1 through 8 and Attachments 13 through 15. 4 See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, 15164; see also Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 435-436 [change in building height from 75 to 90 feet was substantial change requiring major EIR revisions].). 1217 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 4 The Project includes substantial grading of Parcel 7 that will eliminate existing public views from the Jordan Ranch Square and adjacent streets and will place intensive residential development at a designated protected ridgeline resulting in silhouetted buildings from views from the south (including from 1-580, a designated scenic corridor).5 Substantial grading is also proposed for Parcel 8. The developer first disclosed this substantial grading of Parcels 7 and 8 during the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2024. There is no evidence in the EDSP EIRs that the City previously considered, analyzed and approved the proposed substantial grading now proposed on Parcels 7 and 8. The proposed near flattening of the parcel and construction of a cul-de-sac along the southern side of Parcel 7 are new components of the proposed development of "Fallon Village" that will result in new unanalyzed and unmitigated impacts. The analysis provided by the Project applicant's counsel relies upon the inaccurate assertion that the Project does not represent an increase in residential density and commercial intensity over the amount allowed under the EDSP.6 While the EDSP may allow for a floor area ratio ("FAR") of up to 0.80, the EDSP EIRs did not analyze the impacts associated with this level of development for the Project area. Rather, the 2002 SEIR and Fallon Village SEIR evaluated a maximum 0.28 FAR for the parcels zoned as GC/CO.7 Thus, the Project represents a substantial increase in the commercial use intensity over the amount analyzed in the EDSP EIRs upon which the I/S analysis relies. The Project also includes other changes not considered in the EDSP EIRs. The I/S and Addendum do not describe all changes. For example, in 2005, Parcel 7 and the area to the north, including Jordan Ranch Square, was within an area designated as "Fallon Village Center" with markedly different land use and development patterns.8 The attachments to the staff report to the City Council describe additional aspects of the Project that were not described in the I/S and analyzed for significant impacts. These recently disclosed Project components with the potential to cause significant impacts include, but are not limited to: 5 Attachment 13 to the staff report to the City Council, a memorandum drafted by City staff and retained consultants (the "Supplemental Analysis"), acknowledges for the first time that "The proposed project would grade the site to provide a level building pad for the proposed residential development at the same elevation as the adjacent neighborhood." (p. 4.) The I/S conspicuously omits information concerning this critically important aspect of the Project description. See I/S, p. 11. 6 See Attachment 14 to the staff report, letter dated June 20, 2024, p. 3. 7 See 2002 Draft SEIR, Table 2.4-2, Table 3.6-1 [trip generation summary table]; see also 2005 Draft SEIR, p. 14. Attachment 14 to the staff report inaccurately asserts that the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR evaluated commercial density at 0.80 FAR. (See Letter from counsel for Project proponent, dated June 20, 2024, p. 3, citing Initial Study for Fallon Village project, p. 23 [2005 Draft SEIR .pdf at p. 369].) s See 2005 Draft SEIR, pp. 14, 1218 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 5 • Pocket parks within Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 (nighttime light effects);9 • Weekend construction activities, subject to the discretion of the City Engineer (noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors);'° • Following the newly proposed substantial grading, installation of temporary fencing around Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 (culminating in undisclosed aesthetic effects, especially in the areas designated as Visually Sensitive Ridgelines ("VS R") ); • Widening of Pandora Way from 32 to 42 feet (construction period noise and air quality impacts); • Right-of-way acquisition at adjacent property to the north (Jordan Ranch, Tract 8197) (unclear what right-of-way is needed and what impacts could result); • Tract maps for Project design (detailed information concerning Project design not disclosed until Friday, July 12, 2024); • Parking for access to open space on cul-de-sac located adjacent to Parcel 7 (the proposed curb cuts and plan for parking will obstruct views along the designated VSR);11 and • Future abandonment of Croak Road south of the future extension of Dublin Boulevard (conflicts with assumptions in the traffic impact analysis concerning the existence of Croak Road).12 These are not "minor technical changes or additions" for which the use of an EIR addendum is appropriate. Rather, as discussed further below, they are major changes that would cause new significant impacts not comprehensively analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Additionally, circumstances have changed substantially since the EDSP EIRs were prepared and certified, and new information concerning the severity of impacts has become available in the intervening years, independently warranting a new EIR for this Project.'3 Changed circumstances, including the City's adoption of CAP 2030, recent enactment of state policies requiring net zero greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), and mounting evidence of climate change impacts already more severe than predicted in 2005 also militate against reliance on a CEQA addendum as the environmental 9 Attachment 4 to staff report, Landscaping Design Guidelines, pp. 5-6. 10 Attachment 5 to staff report, p. 21 [table row #81]. 11 This newly disclosed plan for parking on the cul-de-sac contradicts the assertion in the applicant's slide presentation to the Planning Commission that views will be maintained through lines of sight between the proposed Project buildings on Parcel 7. 12 Compare Attachment 8 (Development Agreement), p. 16, Section 13.6 with Local Transportation Analysis for Project; see also Attachment 13 to staff report, p. 6 ["alternative routes would be provided via Croak Road to alleviate vehicle traffic through the adjacent residential neighborhood"]. 13 See Public Resources Code, § 21166(b), (c). 1219 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 6 clearance document for this Project. As the supplemental analyses admits, impacts related to climate change were not analyzed at all in the EDSP EIRs. Finally, a stand-alone EIR is warranted for this Project because the prior multi -level and disjointed environmental impact analyses, which rely upon complex tiering and incorporation of multiple historical documents by reference, do not satisfy CEQA's informational purposes. Because the City adopted statements of overriding considerations in connection with its approval of the EDSP in 1993 and the annexation and Fallon Village approvals in 2002 and 2005, respectively, analysis and disclosure of this Project's contribution to any recognized unmitigated impacts is especially appropriate to fully inform decisionmakers and the public. For these reasons, a project -level EIR would better inform the City's decision -makers and facilitate meaningful public participation. B. Because the Project Will Potentially Cause Unanalyzed and Unmitigated Significant Environmental Impacts, an EIR is Required; the Proposed Addendum is Improper As stated in comments to the Planning Commission, the I/S and Addendum rely heavily upon the outdated and incomplete analyses presented in the EDSP EIRs. The EDSP EIRs did not analyze several categories of impacts that the Project may cause, or they underestimated those impacts based upon inaccurate assumptions concerning the pattern of future development. These unanalyzed or inadequately analyzed significant impacts, include, but are not limited to: 1) Impacts to public open space and scenic vistas resulting from large-scale buildings located adjacent to a public park with minimal setbacks and in areas designated as Visually Sensitive Ridgelines; 2) Cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Project when combined with other past, present, and future development projects in the vicinity; 3) Traffic safety hazards on the streets surrounding Jordan Ranch Square (i.e., Twain Harte Rd., Pino Grande Rd., and Pandora Way) created by substantially increasing the number of residences dependent upon small streets for exclusive ingress and egress routes; 4) Air quality impacts associated with recently disclosed but inadequately described substantial grading to level Parcel 7; 5) Health risks associated with Valley Fever present in Project area soils that will be disturbed by grading and other heavy construction activities; and 6) Unanalyzed climate change impacts related to the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. 1220 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 7 The above project -specific impacts, related to changes in land use patterns and increased development intensity associated with the Project, were not studied in the EDSP EIRs.14 Accordingly, the City Council should not approve the Project or grant any permits for associated development projects until a project -level EIR is prepared that fully addresses all significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. 1. The Project, as Designed, Has the Potential to Cause Significant but Unmitigated Aesthetic Impacts The Project includes medium -high density residential development on Parcel 7 and Parcel 8. As explained previously to the Planning Commission, the massive three-story buildings on Parcel 7, depicted on maps in the I/S, would completely obstruct scenic views from Jordan Ranch Square, Pandora Way, and adjacent neighborhood vantages.15 The supplemental analysis contained in Attachment 13 incudes the assertion that views from Jordan Ranch Park are not protected. This assertion conflicts with adopted City policies that protect those public views. These policies include those articulated by the City's Parks and Recreation Department when planning for the park and by City Council when it approved the plan for developing Jordan Ranch Park in December 2022.16 The assertion also conflicts with public view -protecting policies contained in EDSP adopted mitigation measures. This Project as proposed conflicts with those policies because it involves a design that would eliminate the scenic views from Jordan Ranch Park. The proposed substantial grading of Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 (disclosed for the first time during the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2024) will also introduce residential development to areas within the two parcels designated as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands" identified in the 1993 EDSP EIR, the 2002 SEIR, and the 2005 SEIR.17 This intensive medium -high density development will impact views to the north from 1-580 (a scenic corridor). The I/S and Addendum assume, without evidentiary support, that implementation of previously adopted mitigation measures would completely avoid the potential impacts to scenic 14 Several of the above impacts described in the above non -exhaustive list are addressed in our prior comment letter to the Planning Commission. The staff report to the Planning Commission did not address any of our prior comments, even though the comments were submitted a full week in advance of the meeting on June 11, 2024. 15 See Sachin Bhandari comments regarding Project, dated June 4, 2024, pp. 8-11. 16 See Exh. B - Jordan Ranch Square Community Meeting Presentation June 2022; see also Exh. C - 2022 Design Drawing for Jordan Ranch Square; see also Staff Report to City Council and referenced meeting materials for Item 8.1 Approval of Conceptual Plan for Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Square, Dec. 6, 2022, Regular Meeting. 17 Compare Exh. D - Scenic Ridgeland Resources Maps from Fallon Village DSEIR 2005 and Exh. E - Map of Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from 1993 EIR with Exh. F - GHPacVest 240611 PC Hearing Presentation Grading Slides. Attachment 13 to the staff report, at page 4, falsely asserts "the areas designated for Visually Sensitive Ridgelands — Restricted Development would be preserved as Natural Community Park, consistent with the requirements of the EDSP." Development proposed for Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 will encroach into areas within those parcels designated as VSR and therefore requiring restricted development. (See ibid.) 1221 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 8 resources associated with changes to the development patterns and intensity described in the EDSP EIRs.18 For example, the I/S does not explain how the proposed (and newly disclosed) near flat grading of Parcel 7 and development of large, 3-story, residential buildings to the southwest edge of that parcel could possibly be mitigated through implementation of MM 3.8/5.1 ["Structures shall not be located where they would obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above an identified scenic ridgetop (i.e., silhouetted) when viewed from designated scenic routes"].19 As explained above, the southwest corner of Parcel 7 is designated VSR and is therefore subject to development restrictions. The I/S fails to explain how (or whether) the applicable restrictions apply to the Project. According to the Dublin General Plan: Visually sensitive ridgelands and biologically sensitive habitat areas have been protected and incorporated into an open space system that preserves key elements of the areas physical character. Higher development intensities have been concentrated in the more level areas of the valley with lower densities nestled in the hill areas. Hillside grading has been carefully regulated to discourage major alteration of distinctive hill forms.20 Because the proposed substantial grading on Parcel 7, combined with dense residential development of the entire parcel, conflicts with General Plan policies protecting these areas, the City Council lacks substantial evidence to support the required determination that "Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands."21 Additionally, as described in comments to the Planning Commission, the proposed building density and intensity on Parcel 7 does not appear to be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirement to "[s]ite buildings on the downslope side of streets, where feasible, so the main mass of the building is below street level, allowing views over roofs from the street (see Figure 7.31)."22 Attachment 13 to the staff report to the Council includes an 18 See I/S, p. 22. 19 The I/5 also does not address the apparent inconsistencies and lack of compliance with MM 3.8/1.0, MM 3.8/7.0, and MM 3.8/8.1, among other adopted mitigation measures that apply to developments within the EDSP area. 20 General Plan, p. 1-3, available at: https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/36592/Complete-General-Plan- Updated-2-5-24-. 21 Id. at p. 2-9. Attachment 13 to the staff report attempts to address the unanalyzed aesthetic impacts to areas within Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 by referencing a document entitled Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document was not referenced or utilized in the 1/5 and does not appear to be available online. Even if this document were referenced and available, such vague references to information outside the environmental review documents does not satisfy CEQA's requirements and cannot cure the deficient analysis in the environmental review document. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 443.) 22 EDSP, p. 144. 1222 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 9 explanation concerning the feasibility of this measure, stating that the applicant considers it infeasible to retain the downslope on Parcel 7 and construct the new buildings on this downslope. This explanation is not supported by facts or expert opinion supported by facts and therefore does not constitute substantial evidence. The I/S acknowledges that the Project increases development intensity over that analyzed in the EDSP EIRs but assumes, without substantiation, that the above mitigation measures (and others) will be effectively implemented to avoid all potentially significant impacts.23 However, this unsupported assumption is insufficient to assure the public and decision -makers that the impacts to scenic vistas will be completely avoided or minimized to the extent feasible, as required. On the contrary, the adopted mitigation measures for development within the EDSP support the conclusion that the proposed substantial grading of Parcels 7 and 8 is inconsistent with City policies.24 The I/S also relies upon generalized statements with no substantiation to conclude that changes to land use development authorizations associated with the Project would not cause any significant aesthetic impacts.25 To satisfy the CEQA's requirements, the analysis must be revised to specifically describe the changes in building density and development intensity that the Project would entail, describe the practical implications of these changes (i.e., how would the shape and pattern of development change) and address the impacts associated with those changes. For example, the impact analysis must address any physical changes to the proposed development associated with the Project's substantial additional commercial use square footage that may result in impacts to viewsheds and additional light and glare impacts. 2. The Project Will Cause Undisclosed and Unmitigated Air Quality Impacts The EDSP EIRs identified construction -period impacts to air quality as significant and unavoidable. Despite this Project's contributions to those impacts, the I/S and Addendum do not explain how mitigation measures would completely avoid significant air quality impacts. The recently revealed substantial grading of Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 is inconsistent with the EDSP EIRs description of development in the Fallon Village area. This additional grading has the potential to cause impacts beyond those previously disclosed and analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. 23 The I/S also relies upon as yet undeveloped "guidelines" to "further mitigate the visual impact of the building heights and massing." (I/S, p. 23.) Because these guidelines have not been developed and incorporated into the Project, this approach constitutes improper deferral of analysis and mitigation. 24 See Sachin Bhandari comments to City Council regarding Project, dated July 15, 2024, pp. 8-11, 14-21. 25 For example, the I/S explains that "[b]ecause the general type and massing of the proposed buildings would not be significantly different than those considered in the EDSP EIRs, the difference in density would not substantially increase the severity of this previously identified impact." (I/S. p. 23.) This statement does not address the extensive grading proposed for Parcel 7 that would substantially increase the height of the three-story medium - high density residential buildings proposed for this area. The I/S does not disclose the amount of proposed grading. Instead, limited information concerning site grading revealed by the Project proponent (through a series of slides) during the Planning Commission meeting. See Exh. D. 1223 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 10 The I/S fails to provide all information necessary to adequately describe the Project and support its conclusions regarding the Project's air quality impacts. Missing from the I/S are, for example: • A construction schedule specifying the duration and potential overlap of each construction phase (e.g., clearing, grading, paving), the number of equipment on site for each construction phase, the number of construction workers for each phase, etc.; • A description of the total volume of soils that will be disturbed and moved for Project grading;26 and • Modeling files supporting the results of the health risk assessment presented in the I/S, Table F. Project construction would result in engine exhaust emissions generated by on -site construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker commuter vehicles. The I/S finds that air quality impacts associated with Project construction -related engine exhaust emissions would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. This conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided in the I/S. 3. Project Construction Will Cause Undisclosed and Unmitigated Noise Impacts to Neighboring Residents. The analysis of noise impacts relies upon an erroneous approach that results in exaggerated noise attenuation: "The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include a residence located approximately 200 feet north of Parcel 7 of the project site, measured from the center of the parcel, resulting in short-term noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq at the closest residence."27 To accurately assess the noise levels that will impact sensitive receptors, the analysis must be revised to estimate noise levels that will be generated during construction of buildings at the nearest edge of Parcels 7 and 8, using the distances between those buildings and any nearby sensitive receptors. The I/S also does not disclose that construction work on Saturdays may be allowed, subject to the discretion of City Engineer. Instead, this information is disclosed for the first time in a reference buried in Attachment 5. Weekend construction noise has already been a problem for the members of KOA.28 To avoid noise impacts to these residents, noise -generating construction on weekends should be prohibited. If not prohibited, then such construction 26 The I/S states that "[c]ut and fill from project grading would be balanced on -site" but it does not disclose the source or volume of soils that will be used to render Parcel 7 completely flat. The depiction of grading activities presented in Exhibit D strongly suggests that importing soils will be necessary to fill sloped areas. 27 I/S, p. 131. 28 See Sachin Bhandari comments to City Council regarding Project, dated July 15, 2024, p. 3. 1224 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 11 activities should be restricted and mitigated to avoid/minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The mitigation measures for weekend construction noise impacts must be enforceable and include performance standards. This is not an impact that should be left to the sole unguided discretion of the City Engineer. 4. The I/S Failed to Analyze the Susceptibility of Buildings Located on Parcel 7 to Damage Caused by Earthquakes. The recently disclosed substantial grading on Parcel 7 and Parcel 8 could have the undesirable effect of exposing future Project residents to substantial risk due to substantial ground shaking and related structural damage and the possibility of liquefaction of the underlying fill material in the event of an earthquake.29 The I/S acknowledges that The nearest active fault to the project site is the Mount Diablo Thrust, which is located approximately two miles from the site. This fault is considered capable of a moment magnitude earthquake of 6.7. Other active faults in the vicinity of the project site include the Hayward -Rodgers Creek, San Andreas, and Greenville faults, which are all considered active faults. The project site is not located within a State -designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.3o The I/S omits a reference to the Calaveras fault which is an active fault located only 4.8 miles from the site, capable of generating a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, and thus capable of producing significant ground shaking at the site.31 The I/S refers to and relies upon the 2017 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration ("PGE") to conclude that Project grading with implementation of mitigation measures would not cause any significant impacts with respect to soil stability.32 However, the authors of the PGE did not know the extent of fill material that would be utilized for Project development.33 The soils on Parcels 7 and 8 are comprised of 29 See USGS, Liquifaction susceptibility, available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/education/geologicmaps/liquefaction.php#:—:text=Liquefaction%20is%20a%20pheno menon%20where,were%20once%20submerged%20bay%20floor. 30 I/S, p. 89. 31 See Exhibit H to the I/S, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, p. 5; see also 1993 EDSP EIR, Figure 3.6-B, Regional Fault and Epicenter Map. 32 See I/S, p. 95. 33 Exhibit H to the I/S, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, p. 8 ["While preliminary subsurface data developed for this report suggests that the alluvial and colluvial clays are relatively stiff and not highly compressible, the extent of planned fills are not known at this time. Large fill thicknesses can be expected to cause settlement of the underlying soil, as well as settlement within the fill itself due to its own weight."]. 1225 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 12 artificial fill material, colluvium, and bedrock (Tassajara Green Valley Group).34 The proposed grading on portions of both parcels would be on steep slopes.35 The Fallon Village SEIR cited the Eastern Dublin EIR when reporting that "many of the Project area ridge crests are generally underlain by stable, competent material. However, extensive land sliding and gullying (erosion), as well as some soil creep, occur on the site."36 The I/S purports to incorporate some (but not all) of the mitigation measures from the 1993 EDSP EIR.37 Notably, despite the proposed cut and fill grading proposed for Parcels 7 and 8, the I/S does not propose including cut -and -fill slope stability mitigation measures MM 3.6/20 from the 1993 EDSP EIR.38 MM 3.6/20 requires minimizing grading in hillside areas of the EDSP area. The 1993 EDSP EIR recognized that "[d]evelopment of the Project site could result in permanent changes in existing physical conditions (landforms), particularly in the hillside areas, particularly if substantial grading occurs."39 To address this impact, the Specific Plan EIR proposed, and the City Council adopted, MM 3.6/9.0 which specifies: While some permanent landform changes are unavoidable with any development, their magnitude can be reduced by developing minimal grading plans that adapt improvements to the natural landforms, thus minimizing required cuts and fills (see MM 3.6/12). Construction of traditional flat building pads in hillside areas requires more grading than construction of partial pads, or developing custom lots.4o The I/S does not describe or incorporate the feasible supplemental mitigation measures adopted in the more recent and more specific 2005 Fallon Village SEIR.41 Recognizing the area including and extending from the Project site is vulnerable to earthquake risks, the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR imposed Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-GEO-1 which restricted grading in open space areas to "excavations that remove unstable soils and landslide debris and backfilling excavations with compacted, drained engineer fills."42 The substantial grading of Parcel 7 and 34 See id., p. 4 and Figure 2. 35 See id., Figure 2. 36 2005 Draft SEIR, p. 128. 37 I/S, p. 94. The I/S refers to MM 3.6/7.0, but this measure requires design level geotechnical investigations to include stability analyses of both natural slopes and engineered cut and fill slopes. 38 See ibid.; see also 1993 EDSP Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-13 — 3.6-14. 39 See 1993 EDSP Draft EIR, p. 3.6-9. 40 Ibid. 41 I/S, p. 94. 42 2005 Draft SEIR, p. 130. 1226 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 13 the adjacent open space area to construct the cul-de-sac along on the south side of the parcel conflicts with this adopted mitigation measure. 5. The Project's Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Related to Climate Change Have Not Been Analyzed or Mitigated. As stated in our previous comments to the Planning Commission, the City must evaluate the Project's consistency with the City's adopted Climate Action Plan 2030. The I/S attempts to excuse the lack of analysis concerning climate change by arguing that the issue is not "new" and therefore not subject to environmental review requirements pursuant to CEQA. Attachment 14 to the staff report repeats this technical argument without addressing the merits of the issue. Not only are the City staff and the developer's representatives wrong on the law concerning this important subject, but they are also wrong on the policy. The information, requirements, and regulations concerning climate change have improved and broadened in the nearly 20 years since the Fallon Village SEIR was prepared.43 This certainly constitutes new information triggering the need for supplemental environmental review under CEQA.44 Even if the issue of climate change could be disregarded as a legal matter (an assertion KOA emphatically disputes), it should not be disregarded as a matter of policy. Doing so with respect to this Project would demonstrate a callous disregard to a subject of increasing public importance, one that political leaders from the United Nations Secretary General to current and former California Governors agree calls for immediate bold and ambitious action. C. Project Design Changes Would Avoid or Minimize Unanalyzed Potentially Significant Impacts. Many of the potentially significant impacts described above could be avoided or minimized if the Project proponent is willing to modify the design in specific ways. These recommended changes to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Modify access to Parcel 7 so that primary vehicle ingress and egress is from Croak Road and/or Dublin Boulevard; 2. Modify the design for Parcel 7 to reduce the residential intensity and restrict development within the area(s) designated as Visually Sensitive Ridgelands; 43 See, e.g., BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Appendices B and C, available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/plans- and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-cega/updated-cega-guidelines; see also KOA's Comments to Planning Commission re Addendum for Project, dated June 4, 2024, pp. 8-10. 44 The circumstances here are distinguishable from those in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1319, where the Court observed that "the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EIR in November 2002" because here the City is attempting to continue to rely upon the increasingly stale and inadequate EDSP EIRs (wherein the issue of climate change was not analyzed at all). 1227 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 14 3. Remove or limit large-scale residential development in the area within Parcel 7 adjacent to Pandora Way; 4. Retain, to the maximum extent practicable, the existing slope on Parcel 7; 5. Minimize development and grading for Parcel 8 within the VSR designated area; and 6. Fund sidewalk improvements within Jordan Ranch Square.4s If the Project applicant agrees to these changes, or a modified design that incorporates these recommendations (or substantially similar design changes), KOA may be willing to withdraw their opposition to the Project. D. KOA Reiterates Its Request For Notice Concerning Further Environmental Review and Public Hearings Concerning the Project We note that the staff report to the City Council for this Project was not released to the public until Friday, July 12, 2024, just three (3) business days prior to the City Council meeting were the Project will be considered for approval. By not making the substantial supplemental analysis and detailed Project information available to the public for review until the very last minute, City staff have repeated a pattern that disadvantages concerned stakeholders and unfairly favors development interests. Please provide the undersigned with notice of all CEQA documentation completed for the Project and all public meetings or hearings concerning the Project. Please also provide such notice to KOA representative Sachin Bhandari at the following email address: sachin.bhandari.msc@gmail.com. II. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully reiterate KOA's requests that: (1) the Project not include development intensity or density that exceeds the amount of residential and commercial development allowed under the EDSP (as modified in 2002 and 2005), (2) if the Project is intensified in any non -negligible way over the development levels approved in the EDSP, the City must prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration for the Project, as appropriate, and that must specifically identify the proposed changes to previously approved development, and (3) KOA receives timely notice through the remainder of the environmental review and administrative process. 45 This list, based on information currently available, is not comprehensive. Following further review of the I/S, Addendum, EDSP EIRs and other available information, KOA may recommend additional changes to the Project's design. 1228 City of Dublin, Mayor, City Council and City Planner Follow Up Comments re Dublin Fallon 580 I/S and CEQA Addendum July 15, 2024 Page 15 Thank you in advance for your anticipated careful consideration of the above follow up comments submitted on behalf of KOA. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the comments and recommendations expressed herein, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: (via email only) Client contacts Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Very truly yours, Jason W. Holder Email response from Senior Planner Crystal De Castro re links to EDSP EIRs posted to project website, dated June 5, 2024 Jordan Ranch Square Community Meeting Presentation June 2022 2022 Design Drawing for Jordan Ranch Square Scenic Ridgeland Resources Maps from Fallon Village DSEIR 2005 Map of Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from 1993 EIR GHPacVest 240611 PC Hearing Presentation Grading Slides 1229 7/9/24, 8:37 PM Holder Law Group Mail - Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum Gmail Exhibit A Jason Holder <jason@holderecolaw.com> Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum Crystal De Castro<Crystal.DeCastro@dublin.ca.gov> Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 5:44 PM To: Jason Holder <jason@holderecolaw.com> Cc: Sachin Bhandari <sachin.bhandari.msc@gmail.com>, Neda Zayer <Neda.Zayer@dublin.ca.gov> Hi Jason, Electronic versions of the EDSP EIRs are available on the Development Activity page at: https://dublin- development.icitywork.com/ The June 11, 2024 Planning Commission agenda also provides the project staff report, which includes the link to the EDSP EIRs, available at: Planning Commission Agenda. Thanks, !�t DUBLIN THE NEW ANER1CAN BAC KYA RD Crystal De Castro Senior Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 I (925) 833-6628 FAX crystal.decastro@dublin.ca.gov I www.dublin.ca.gov Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champion a culture of diversity and inclusion. From: Jason Holder <jason@holderecolaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:48 PM To: Planning Commission <PlanningCommission©dublin.ca.gov>; Crystal De Castro <Crystal.DeCastro@dublin.ca.gov> Cc: Sachin Bhandari <sachin.bhandari.msc@gmail.com> Subject: Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum 1230 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52d2103300&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1801070501298982329&dsgt=1&simpl=msg-f:1801070501... - 7/9/24, 8:37 PM Holder Law Group Mail - Dublin Fallon 580 Project: Comments re Initial Study and Addendum CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Please find the attached comments concerning the above -referenced project, submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission on behalf of Kingswood Owners Association. The comments are submitted in anticipation of Planning Commission consideration of the Project at its next meeting on June 11, 2024. Sincerely, -Jason Jason W. Holder Holder Law Group Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney -client and/or the attorney work -product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you 123 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=52d2103300&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1801070501298982329&dsgt=1 &simpl=msg-f:1801070501... EXISTING CONDITIONS Exhibit B JORDAN RANCHIGHBNE SQUARE SITE ANALYSIS - LEGEND PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL VEHICULAR PATH OF TRAVEL mimmm PARKING �C LIGHT POLES GREENSPACE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT =MUM(-- --- --- MOM= PROJECT SITE JORDAN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE DUBLIN Attachment 3 THE FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES FOREST PARK - NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE TREES NATURE PLAYGROUND - EXPLORING THE FOREST FLOOR DUBLIN BEACH- FUN UNDER THE SUN � SHADE CANOPY GROVE- DISCOVER PLACES OF RESPITE IN THE FOREST DUBLIN CALIFORNiA KEY FEATURES - DENSE SHADE CANOPY FOR INFORMAL ACTIVITIES - ACTIVATED PARK EDGES FOR PLAY - FLEX LAWN 4 ;r NATURE LAYGROUN rt t_. . Exhibit C CENTRAL PAR. WAY PA N D O R A WAY 4 D m 0 10' 20' 1"=20' PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: COMMUNITY INPUT PROVIDED IS SWA'S PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY'S RESPONSES. THE THEMES IDENTIFIED WERE EVALUATED AND EXTRACTED BY NOTING COMMENTS THAT APPEARED MULTIPLE TIMES AND ON DIFFERENT DESIGN OPTIONS. WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT FEASIBLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK. THESE COMMENTS WERE RELATED TO THE REQUEST TO INCLUDE WATER FEATURE, CERTAIN SPORTS COURT FACILITIES THAT WOULD NOT FIT THE SITE, AND RESTROOMS FACILITIES. COMMUNITY INkL DESIGN • COMMON THEME: THE FOREST DESIGN WAS THE COMMUNITIES 1ST CHOICE. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: PEOPLE SEEMED TO LIKE THE NATURAL DESIGN OF THIS OPTION AND HOW IT LENT ITSELF TO THE VALLEY VIEWS. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT AND WILL INCORPORATE COMMUNITY INPUT. SPORTS AND FITNESS • COMMON THEME: THE COMMUNITY NOTED THAT SOME SORT OF SPORTS COURT AND FITNESS ACTIVITY, WAS IMPORTANT. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A SPORT COURT IS WANTED BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE THE MAIN ELEMENT OF THE PARK. • DESIGN ACTION: THE SPORTS COURT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT, AND SWA WILL BEGIN TO LOOK HOW TO INCORPORATE A MULTI -USE SPORTS COURT AND BE DEVELOPED INTO THE DESIGN. PLAYGROUND • COMMON THEME: A PLAYGROUND BE FOR CHILDREN OF ALL AGES. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: DESIGN A PLAYGROUND FOR ALL AGES AND INCLUDE PLAYGROUND SHOULD INCLUDE THE ELEMENT WANTED BY THE COMMUNITY. IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WERE A FEW PLAY ELEMENTS IN OTHER DESIGN OPTIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THE FOREST DESIGN SCHEME • DESIGN ACTION: AS THE CONCEPT SCHEME MOVES INTO SCHEMATIC DESIGN SWA WILL DESIGN A PLAYGROUND THAT RESPONDS TO THE COMMUNITIES SUGGESTIONS. BBQ • COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENT NOTING THAT MORE BBQ AREAS ARE NEEDED. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: ADD BBQ AREAS TO ADDRESS THE WANT. • DESIGN ACTION: BBQ'S WILL BE ADDED TO EACH OF THE PICNIC AREAS. THE FINAL LOCATIONS AND QUANTITY OF BBQ'S WILL BE EVALUATED AND INCLUDED IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE. GARDEN • COMMON THEME: THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR A POLLINATOR GARDEN [SEVERAL COMMENTS FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN) • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: A POLLINATOR GARDEN OR PROPERLY SELECTED PLANTING PALLET WOULD FIT NICELY INTO THE FOREST DESIGN CONCEPT. A COMMUNITY GARDEN MAYBE POSSIBLE, HOWEVER THIS WILL NEED TO BE EVALUATED BY THE CITY. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL BEGIN TO SELECT PLANT MATERIALS IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE, AND WILL INCLUDE POLLINATOR PLANTING IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN. A COMMUNITY GARDEN DOES NOT FIT INTO THE PROGRAM ELEMENT OR GUIDELINES OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE PARK, SO THIS ELEMENT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN. FLEX LAWN • COMMON THEME: FLEX LAWN WAS SEEN AS AN IMPORTANT ITEM, AND SEVERAL USES WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY, SUCH AS SPORTS LIKE VOLLEYBALL, AND ADDITIONAL PARK SEATING. • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THE FLEX LAWN IS IMPORTANT AND WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DESIGN. • DESIGN ACTION: THE FLEX LAWN WILL BE INCLUDED; HOWEVER, NO PERMANENT SPORTS ELEMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT PREVENT THE COMMUNITY MEMBER FROM SETTING GAMES AND SPORTS ON AN AS NEEDED BASES, AND THE LAWN WILL BE DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE USES. BENCH SEATING WILL BE ADDED TO THE EDGE OF THE LAWN AREA. VIEWS COMMON THEME: PROTECTING VIEWS • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: THIS WILL BE EVALUATED AND STUDIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST SUIT THE PARK AND THE COMMUNITY. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL LOOK ARE REVISING DESIGN GEOMETRIES TO ACCENTUATE THE VIEWS FROM THE PARK. SEAT HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED ALONG THE LAWN EDGE SO THAT VIEWS CAN BE PASSIVELY APPRECIATED. SHADE • COMMON THEME: SHADE IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY • DESIGN TAKEAWAY: WE WILL HAVE TO STUDY THIS TO MAKE SURE WE PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF SHADE ELEMENTS. • DESIGN ACTION: SWA WILL FURTHER LOOKING INTO ENSURING SHADE IS PROVIDED IN KEY AREAS. JORDAN-I RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD LSQUARE FLEX LAWN FOREST PLAY BIKE PARKING 1234 Exhibit D Airport Protection Zone Line — Ridgeline Visually Sensitive Ridgelands: No Development Visually Sensitive Ridgelands: Restricted Development %//� VSR within OS or RRA Land Use designation in current Stage 1 PD but within Low Density Residential designation in proposed Stage 1 PD Amendment (21,O±acres). VSR within Low Density Residential Land Use designation in current Stage 1 PD but within OS or RR/A designation in proposed Stage 1 PD Amendment (3.2±acres). 1 ♦ Area within 1 ♦ designated VSR affected by 1 tectton Dublin Fallon Airport -380 Project Zon �ne 1 1 1 Collier Canyon lobed Ridgeline SOURCE: MacKay & Scraps, 6-30-2005. N CITY OF DUBLIN FALLON VILLAGE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 4.8.3a EXISTING SCENIC RIDGELAND RESOURCES 0 400 80C 1 I� 7600 2400 feet 1235 It I 1 / 1 • . ,., , / I ' \ 1 • • 1 1 f ; t'''`• i / : 1 ! • "\ ! \ I • \ ; • 1:'' t.) • -;,...,••••• , k , 7•••••• ir s..1 t ! % '-,, : '• \ / ( \si••• . \... . 1 . . • / \ ........ f‘, / 1.:".:;••••-•' • (‘ c:" • t '• '% '. ! \ •,, ,,,,,, , SOO %,.... ''.•• MIN 110 M UN MII NI IIMMIIIIIIIII IN En Glea2on ;Road \ t ; /) ;•.‘•••[1.d:1.1, • ' ,g 0,•••—s • \ ,so ( 7 ; . ;, N \•1000—••' ) cc; ) \ ) ..... c• 7/ goo 1-\ • -) c" ...... ) , „•• . 1 • , • • t P-580 •.....' ,, • \ .>•,. .\.. ,..,, ,,/,.....,,,, ,......... / ;1*, ( ,.. / • • --, '. , •• r i N : • • / • . • . c,' ...1% ::. '1. 1.1 ( i ( .•• ... i'• P. t ') /.: ,./ . , ....).• : : ,- \ : ,. %. ‘• r . ‘,... . .....- "-• „.., : ; ir ' ) \ „ • \ ; • ; 1 ! ; • ; I ; t Too ; • NT. ', •',' .:Sa ,.. , '‘,.....t• ',, , \ . • ..,- t .... s. / :11,--..--• • if <•, \ . • • t ,. .....\ \.7/ `• ,.„ , ' ;oo- ..... • 1300,— , . 111=11=1.1 .• N • .• ! , / • Visually Sensitive Ridgelands Legend Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - No Development Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - Restricted Development Area within designated VSR affected by Dublin Fallon 580 Project EASTERN DUBLIN GPA • SP • EIR Wallace Roberts & Todd Figure as - H Acres 10 Mo 0 0 600 1200 Feet 1/4 1/2 1236 Exhibit E c5, Berkeley, California 8-19 2005 A AMEDA DUEL Avport Protection Zone Line GC PLEASANTON ;t GC/CO/I Ridgeline L y5R- - - •.' Restricted ;Development M GC/CO/l GC/CO/I NP f M O U C7 1 1 _ _ Airport Pr/otection ZonetLrne 1 Ridgeline Ridgeline Visually Sensitive Ridgelands: No Development Visually Sensitive Ridgelands: Restricted Development 0 ' 1 r Collies Canyon Filed SOURCE: MacKay & Somps, 8-9-2005. CITY OF DUBLIN FALLON VILLAGE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 4.8.3b PROPOSED SCENIC RIDGELAND RESOURCES 0 400 800 1600 2400 feet 1237 LOOKING EAST - GRADING Exhibit F F1H PARCELS NH PARCEL7 NATURE PARK T. PARCEL 4 PARK PARCEL 5 NATURE PARK PARCEL 6 GC1CO PARCEL 2 GCCO PARCEL 9 GC1CG PARCEL 3 CROAK RD. GH PACVEST GOCo PROPERTY PARCEL 1 FALLON GATEWAY HOPPING CENTE DUBLIN # kt * * * k k GH PACVEST, LLC BAYWEST mACKAY&SO DEVELOPMENT 1238 LOOKING NE -GRADING - AFIVANC NATURE PARK PARCEL 4 D001.114 BLVD. GC!CO PARCEL 2 GCICO PARCELI V DUBLIN CR°QKRD. Dug11N 131.VD. �x'[�xs10N GH PACVEST PROPERTY agb * .... +*** GH PACVEST, LLC GC:CO PARCEL 3 GCICO PARCEL 1 1� * • sr BAYWEST MACKAY &SO DEVELOPMENT 1-580 1239 LOOKING NW -GRADING -�� _DUBLINBLVD. FALLQN GA.T HOPPING C - _ 0 GC C4 PARCEL 1 FALL0 RD. GH PACVEST PROPERTY GCICG PARCEL 1 MS PAR GCJCG PARCEL? * ***A.** + * * * k k DUBLIN ''=" *** **** GH PACVEST, i i r ty�s MH PARCEL 7 GCICG PARCEL GC/CO PARCEL 9 Alr - - -- _ JORDAN RANCH NAM K PARCELfi BAYWEST MACKAY &SO DEVELOPMENT MH PARCEL 9 1240 LOOKING WEST - GRADING GC,CD PARCEL 1 GC:CO PARCEL3 GH PACVEST PROPERTY GCICG PARCEL 1 GCICG PARCEL 9 NATURE P PARCEL6 PARK PARCEL 5 MH PARCEL MH PARCELa FALCON 580 DUBLIN * * * * * k k *** GH PACVEST, LLC ' II BAYWEST mAcKAY&So DEVELOPMENT 1241 LOOKING WEST (ZOOM) - GRADING FALLOW GATR'ir ` • -.mower' _- -` SHOPPING CE'- -- — - ALLONROAD coca PARCEL 2 GH PACVEST PROPERTY NATURE PARK PARCEL 6 NATURE PARK PARCEL 4 GCICO PARCEL 11 CROAK RD. IN BL ,- TURE PARK PARCEL 4 -OS PARCEL 10 MH PARCELS PARK PARCEL 5 MH PARCEL 7 JORDAN RANCH ow - PROPERTY JORDAN RANCH CROAK PROPERTY FAIIO 8o DUBLIN * GH PACVEST, LLC BAYWEST MACKAY &SO DEVELOPMENT 1242